Federal Register Vol. 81, No.223,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 223 (November 18, 2016)

Page Range81641-83105
FR Document

81_FR_223
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 81818 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 81769 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member MeetingPDF
81 FR 81813 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Directors and Operations & Regulations Committee Telephonic MeetingsPDF
81 FR 81807 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 81798 - Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Notice of Public Meeting; CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 81801 - Notice of Realty Action: Application for Conveyance of Federally Owned Mineral Interests in Lee County, FLPDF
81 FR 81765 - Registration Review; Draft Malathion Human Health Risk Assessment; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 81761 - Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations To Terminate Certain UsesPDF
81 FR 81857 - Virginia Disaster Number VA-00065PDF
81 FR 81856 - North Carolina Disaster #NC-00086PDF
81 FR 81780 - Determination That BENEMID (Probenecid) Tablet and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
81 FR 81772 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Premarket NotificationPDF
81 FR 81765 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81785 - Use of The Seafood List To Determine Acceptable Seafood Names; Draft Compliance Policy Guide; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81783 - Submission of Premarket Notifications for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81744 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
81 FR 81776 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Special Protocol AssessmentPDF
81 FR 81787 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request: A National Survey of Nurse Coaches (NIH Clinical Center)PDF
81 FR 81685 - Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing Practice RequirementsPDF
81 FR 81866 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81772 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81788 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG MAXWELL PAUL MORANPDF
81 FR 81857 - SJI Board of Directors Meeting, NoticePDF
81 FR 81699 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2016 Management Area 1B Directed Fishery ClosurePDF
81 FR 81807 - Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 81768 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 81769 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 81748 - Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, WashingtonPDF
81 FR 81698 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Georges Bank Cod Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure and Possession and Trip Limit Reductions for the Common Pool FisheryPDF
81 FR 81786 - Notice of Joint Meeting by the Urology Interagency Coordinating Committee and the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 81736 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration RegulationsPDF
81 FR 81733 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81739 - Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Application for Firewalled StatusPDF
81 FR 81766 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81745 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
81 FR 81738 - Solid Urea From Russia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 81818 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 81814 - Applied Sciences Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 81755 - Waterford Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81752 - Lawrenceburg Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81758 - Gavin Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81757 - Pima Energy Storage System, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81758 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81754 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 81751 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 81759 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-511, FERC-515, & FERC-574); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81751 - Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 81750 - PacifiCorp, Klamath River Renewal Corporation; Notice of Applications Filed With the CommissionPDF
81 FR 81753 - Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 81755 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-547); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81753 - Three Peaks Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81756 - Darby Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 81753 - Midwest Generation, LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 81817 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 81741 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Meeting on a Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International LawPDF
81 FR 81817 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR 1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 81819 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 81858 - Ninety Seventh Plenary for RTCA SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning SystemPDF
81 FR 81859 - Thirtieth RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security PlenaryPDF
81 FR 81857 - Thirteenth RTCA SC-231 TAWS PlenaryPDF
81 FR 81860 - Sixteenth Meeting of the RTCA Tactical Operations CommitteePDF
81 FR 81816 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 81719 - International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 81816 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 81814 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 81815 - Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 81734 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81735 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81737 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81732 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81746 - Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 81746 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Per Vivo Labs, Inc.; Kingsport, TNPDF
81 FR 81731 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81808 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Applicant Information Form (1-783)PDF
81 FR 81808 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection: National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure ReportPDF
81 FR 81733 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 81719 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81747 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 81663 - Temporary General License: Extension of ValidityPDF
81 FR 81787 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing and/or Co-DevelopmentPDF
81 FR 81782 - Medical Devices Regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 81779 - Revised Recommendations for Determining Eligibility of Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Who Have Received Human-Derived Clotting Factor Concentrates; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81796 - Incidental Take Permit Applications for Alabama Beach Mouse; Gulf Shores, AlabamaPDF
81 FR 81802 - Filing of Plats of Survey; NVPDF
81 FR 81798 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/WashingtonPDF
81 FR 81778 - Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81774 - Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to User Fee Assessments; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 81766 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10400, Sun Security Bank, Ellington, MissouriPDF
81 FR 81861 - Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance (META) Program Workshop on Battery Applications in Maritime TransportationPDF
81 FR 81756 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 81752 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 81761 - Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference CommentsPDF
81 FR 81856 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81825 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81820 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades To Lower the Enterprise FeePDF
81 FR 81835 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 81834 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 81842 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 81828 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use of Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 81832 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 81825 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide and Distributions Guide Relating to the Anticipated U.S. Market Transition to a Shortened Settlement CyclePDF
81 FR 81854 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 81830 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide With Respect to Settlement Instructions Provided to DTC by Matching UtilitiesPDF
81 FR 81844 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Rule Change Amending the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes To Require All Parties Other Than Pro Se Customers To File and Serve Pleadings and Documents Through the FINRA Office of Dispute Resolution's Party Portal and To Permit Mediation Parties To Use the PortalPDF
81 FR 81837 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the MSRB's Customer Complaint and Related Recordkeeping Rules to Municipal Advisors and To Modernize Those RulesPDF
81 FR 81866 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13660PDF
81 FR 81745 - Fair Credit Reporting Act DisclosuresPDF
81 FR 81726 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) Inviting Applications for the Rural Business Development Grant Program To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation SystemsPDF
81 FR 81697 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program RequirementsPDF
81 FR 81805 - Notice of Temporary Concession Contracts for Certain Visitor Services in Acadia National ParkPDF
81 FR 81724 - Applications for Licensing as a Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Company Under the Rural Business Investment ProgramPDF
81 FR 81858 - Thirteenth RTCA SC-228 Focused PlenaryPDF
81 FR 81789 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Record of Vessel Foreign Repair or Equipment PurchasePDF
81 FR 81805 - Notice of Continuation of Concession ContractsPDF
81 FR 81802 - Notice of Extension of Concession ContractsPDF
81 FR 81857 - Revocation of License of Small Business Investment CompanyPDF
81 FR 81769 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 81859 - Forty Sixth RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services PlenaryPDF
81 FR 81860 - Forty Fifth RTCA SC-224 Airport Security Access Control Systems PlenaryPDF
81 FR 81812 - Mine Safety and Health AdministrationPDF
81 FR 81810 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
81 FR 81861 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Revision; Submission for OMB Review; Diversity Self-Assessment Template for OCC-Regulated EntitiesPDF
81 FR 81863 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated With Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships With Covered FundsPDF
81 FR 81765 - SES Performance Review Board-Appointment of MembersPDF
81 FR 81819 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 81820 - Order Approving Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Supplemental Budget for Calendar Year 2016PDF
81 FR 81740 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation FormsPDF
81 FR 81867 - National Research Advisory Council; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 81770 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 81797 - Invasive Species Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 81805 - 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid from China; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 83104 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Small Entity Compliance GuidePDF
81 FR 81664 - Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation RulePDF
81 FR 83103 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 83092 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; IntroductionPDF
81 FR 83092 - Federal Acquisition Regulation; Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals-RepresentationPDF
81 FR 83097 - Federal Acquisition Regulation: Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic CommunicationPDF
81 FR 81712 - Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for WyomingPDF
81 FR 81711 - Revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting Regulations and Establishment of a Significant Emissions Rate (SER) for GHG Emissions Under the PSD ProgramPDF
81 FR 81657 - Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund and Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust FundPDF
81 FR 83008 - Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource ConservationPDF
81 FR 81709 - Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Aero Evacuation SystemsPDF
81 FR 81789 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 82398 - Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant WorkersPDF
81 FR 81704 - Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 81707 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 81701 - Occupational Radiation ProtectionPDF
81 FR 81660 - Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series EnginePDF
81 FR 81809 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp in Letcher County, KentuckyPDF
81 FR 81641 - Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; Amendment to the Standards Governing Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts from Outside SourcesPDF
81 FR 81870 - Investment Company Reporting ModernizationPDF
81 FR 82142 - Investment Company Liquidity Risk Management ProgramsPDF
81 FR 82084 - Investment Company Swing PricingPDF
81 FR 82494 - Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems)PDF
81 FR 82272 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under the Clean Air ActPDF

Issue

81 223 Friday, November 18, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81770-81772 2016-27705 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81719 2016-27774
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting Activities, 81719-81724 2016-27791 Army Army Department NOTICES Exclusive Patent Licenses: Per Vivo Labs, Inc.; Kingsport, TN, 81746 2016-27782 Meetings: Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee, 81746-81747 2016-27783 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosures, 81745-81746 2016-27735 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Corrections, 81697-81698 2016-27733 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81772 2016-27836 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Certificates of Alternative Compliance: TUG MAXWELL PAUL MORAN, 81788-81789 2016-27835 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Technical Information Service

See

Patent and Trademark Office

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 81744-81745 2016-27820 2016-27841 Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Trust Funds: Pima Agriculture Cotton Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers, 81657-81660 2016-27661 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81861-81866 2016-27711 2016-27712 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Introduction, 83092 2016-27687 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 83104-83105 2016-27697 Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, 83092-83097 2016-27686 Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication, 83097-83103 2016-27684 Technical Amendments, 83103-83104 2016-27688 NOTICES Meetings: Government-Industry Advisory Panel, 81747-81748 2016-27773
Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Occupational Radiation Protection, 81701-81704 2016-27510
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Update to the Refrigerant Management Requirements under the Clean Air Act, 82272-82395 2016-24215 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Wyoming; Interstate Transport, 81712-81718 2016-27672 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Permitting Regulations and Establishment of a Significant Emissions Rate for GHG Emissions Under the PSD Program, 81711-81712 2016-27670 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 81765 2016-27845 Registration Reviews: Draft Malathion Human Health Risk Assessment, 81765 2016-27867 Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations to Terminate Certain Uses, 81761-81765 2016-27865 Equal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTICES SES Performance Review Board; Appointment Of Members, 81765-81766 2016-27710 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Various Aircraft Equipped with BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine, 81660-81663 2016-27444 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Learjet Inc. Airplanes, 81704-81707 2016-27532 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 81707-81709 2016-27531 Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems, 81709-81711 2016-27626 NOTICES Meetings: Plenary for Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics SC-159 Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System, 81858 2016-27796 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary, 81859 2016-27795 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics SC-231 Terrain Awareness Warning Systems Plenary, 81857-81858 2016-27794 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics Tactical Operations Committee, 81860-81861 2016-27793 RTCA SC-206 Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services Plenary, 81859-81860 2016-27717 RTCA SC-224 Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary, 81860 2016-27716 RTCA SC-228 Focused Plenary, 81858 2016-27730 RTCA Tactical Operations Committee, 81860 2016-27715 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: 10400, Sun Security Bank, Ellington, MO, 81766 2016-27760 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81755-81756, 81759-81761 2016-27804 2016-27808 Combined Filings, 81751-81757 2016-27754 2016-27755 2016-27809 2016-27811 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 81751 2016-27807 Filings: Midwest Generation, LLC, 81753 2016-27801 Hydroelectric Applications: Entergy Arkansas, Inc., 81753-81754 2016-27805 PacifiCorp; Klamath River Renewal Corp., 81750-81751 2016-27806 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Darby Power, LLC, 81756 2016-27802 Gavin Power, LLC, 81758 2016-27814 Lawrenceburg Power, LLC, 81752 2016-27815 Pima Energy Storage System, LLC, 81757-81758 2016-27813 Three Peaks Power, LLC, 81753 2016-27803 Waterford Power, LLC, 81755 2016-27816 Meetings: Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services, 81761 2016-27753 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 81758-81759 2016-27812 Federal Housing Finance Agency Federal Housing Finance Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81766-81768 2016-27821 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Change in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 81769 2016-27719 2016-27830 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 81769 2016-27718 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 81768 2016-27831 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 81769-81770 2016-27980 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission RULES Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, 81664-81685 2016-27694 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Incidental Take Permit Applications: Alabama Beach Mouse, Gulf Shores, AL, 81796-81797 2016-27766 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements, 81685-81697 2016-27838 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Special Protocol Assessment, 81776-81778 2016-27840 Medical Device Premarket Notification, 81772-81774 2016-27851 Determinations that Products Were not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: BENEMID (Probenecid) Tablet, 81780-81782 2016-27855 Draft Guidance for Industry: Bacillus Calmette-Guerin--Unresponsive Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Developing Drugs and Biologics for Treatment, 81778-81779 2016-27762 Guidance for Industry: Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012: Questions and Answers Related to User Fee Assessments, 81774-81776 2016-27761 Guidance: Revised Recommendations for Determining Eligibility of Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products Who Have Received Human-Derived Clotting Factor Concentrates, 81779-81780 2016-27768 Submission of Premarket Notifications for Magnetic Resonance Diagnostic Devices, 81783-81785 2016-27842 Use of The Seafood List to Determine Acceptable Seafood Names, 81785-81786 2016-27843 Medical Devices: Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval Applications, 81782-81783 2016-27769 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 81866 2016-27736 General Services General Services Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Introduction, 83092 2016-27687 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 83104-83105 2016-27697 Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, 83092-83097 2016-27686 Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication, 83097-83103 2016-27684 Technical Amendments, 83103-83104 2016-27688 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office RULES Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch: Standards Governing Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts from Outside Sources, 81641-81657 2016-27036 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

RULES Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program Improvements Affecting High-Skilled Nonimmigrant Workers, 82398-82492 2016-27540
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Properties Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 81789-81796 2016-27561 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Temporary General Licenses: Extension of Validity, 81663-81664 2016-27772 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81733 2016-27823 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations, 81736-81737 2016-27824 Denials of Export Privileges: Daniel Miranda-Mendoza, 81734-81735 2016-27787 Hassan Jamil Salame, 81733-81734 2016-27776 Javier Nenos Rea, 81735-81736 2016-27786 Jorge Santana, Jr., 81732-81733 2016-27784 Julio Cesar Solis-Castilleja, 81737-81738 2016-27785 Luis Alberto Najera-Citalan, 81731-81732 2016-27780 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

NOTICES Meetings: Invasive Species Advisory Committee, 81797-81798 2016-27704
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Solid Urea from Russia, 81738-81739 2016-27819 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-Diphosphonic Acid from China, 81805-81807 2016-27703 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Mobile Electronic Devices, 81807-81808 2016-27832 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 81807 2016-27913 Justice Department Justice Department See

Prisons Bureau

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Applicant Information Form, 81808 2016-27779 National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure Report, 81808-81809 2016-27778
Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau RULES Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation, 83008-83089 2016-27637 NOTICES Meetings: California; Proposed Land Withdrawal, 81798-81801 2016-27869 Plats of Surveys: Nevada, 81802 2016-27764 Oregon/Washington, 81798 2016-27763 Realty Actions: Application for Conveyance of Federally Owned Mineral Interests in Lee County, FL, 81801-81802 2016-27868 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings: Sunshine Act, 81813-81814 2016-27918 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Meetings: Maritime Environmental and Technical Assistance Program Workshop on Battery Applications in Maritime Transportation, 81861 2016-27757 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modifications: Applications of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 81810-81813 2016-27713 2016-27714 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation: Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Introduction, 83092 2016-27687 Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-92; Small Entity Compliance Guide, 83104-83105 2016-27697 Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, 83092-83097 2016-27686 Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication, 83097-83103 2016-27684 Technical Amendments, 83103-83104 2016-27688 NOTICES Meetings: Applied Sciences Advisory Committee, 81814 2016-27817 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Survey of Nurse Coaches, 81787-81788 2016-27839 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 81787 2016-27770 Meetings: Urology Interagency Coordinating Committee; Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee Meeting, 81786-81787 2016-27825 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of Northeastern United States: Atlantic Herring Fishery; Management Area 1B Directed Fishery Closure, 81699-81700 2016-27833 Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Georges Bank Cod Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure and Possession and Trip Limit Reductions for Common Pool Fishery, 81698-81699 2016-27826 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Concession Contracts; Continuation, 81805 2016-27728 Concession Contracts; Extension, 81802-81804 2016-27723 Concession Contracts; Temporary: Acadia National Park, 81805 2016-27732 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 81815-81816 2016-27788 2016-27790 Permit Applications: Antarctic Conservation Act, 81814-81815 2016-27789 National Technical National Technical Information Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Limited Access Death Master File Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Application for Firewalled Status, 81739-81740 2016-27822 Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, 81740-81741 2016-27707 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Meetings: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, Washington, 81748-81750 2016-27827 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on APR 1400, 81817-81818 2016-27798 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Fukushima, 81817 2016-27800 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 81816-81817 2016-27792 Sunshine Act, 81818 2016-27999 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment, 82494-83006 2016-24557 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Meetings: Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Hague Conference on Private International Law, 81741-81744 2016-27799 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81818-81819 2016-27818 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 81819-81820 2016-27709 2016-27797 Prisons Prisons Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp in Letcher County, KY, 81809-81810 2016-27148 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Applications for Licensing: Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Company under the Rural Business Investment Program, 81724-81726 2016-27731 Requests for Applications: Rural Business Development Grant Program to Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems, 81726-81731 2016-27734 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Investment Company Liquidity Risk Management Programs, 82142-82269 2016-25348 Investment Company Reporting Modernization, 81870-82081 2016-25349 Investment Company Swing Pricing, 82084-82139 2016-25347 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81825, 81856 2016-27749 2016-27750 Orders: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Supplemental Budget for 2016, 81820 2016-27708 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 81842-81844 2016-27745 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 81835-81837 2016-27747 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 81832-81833 2016-27743 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 81828-81830 2016-27744 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 81834-81835 2016-27746 Depository Trust Co., 81825-81828, 81830-81832 2016-27740 2016-27742 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 81844-81854 2016-27739 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 81854-81856 2016-27741 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 81837-81842 2016-27738 NYSE Arca, Inc., 81820-81825 2016-27748 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Major Disaster Declarations: North Carolina, 81856-81857 2016-27863 Virginia; Amendment 1, 81857 2016-27864 Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Companies: First New England Capital 2, L.P., 81857 2016-27722 State Justice State Justice Institute NOTICES Meetings: SJI Board of Directors, 81857 2016-27834 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Maritime Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 81866-81867 2016-27837
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Record of Vessel Foreign Repair or Equipment Purchase, 81789 2016-27729 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: National Research Advisory Council, 81867 2016-27706 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 81870-82081 2016-25349 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 82084-82139 2016-25347 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 82142-82269 2016-25348 Part V Environmental Protection Agency, 82272-82395 2016-24215 Part VI Homeland Security Department, 82398-82492 2016-27540 Part VII Labor Department, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 82494-83006 2016-24557 Part VIII Interior Department, Land Management Bureau, 83008-83089 2016-27637 Part IX Defense Department, 83092-83105 2016-27687 2016-27697 2016-27686 2016-27684 2016-27688 General Services Administration, 83092-83105 2016-27687 2016-27697 2016-27686 2016-27684 2016-27688 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 83092-83105 2016-27687 2016-27697 2016-27686 2016-27684 2016-27688 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

81 223 Friday, November 18, 2016 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 5 CFR Part 2635 RIN 3209-AA04 Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch; Amendment to the Standards Governing Solicitation and Acceptance of Gifts from Outside Sources AGENCY:

Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics is issuing a final rule revising the portions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees that govern the solicitation and acceptance of gifts from outside sources. The final rule modifies the existing regulations to more effectively advance public confidence in the integrity of Federal officials. The final rule also incorporates past interpretive guidance, adds and updates regulatory examples, improves clarity, updates citations, and makes technical corrections.

DATES:

This final rule is effective January 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leigh J. Francis, Assistant Counsel, or Christopher J. Swartz, Assistant Counsel, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Rulemaking History

On November 27, 2015, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published for public comment a proposed rule setting forth comprehensive revisions to subpart B of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (Standards of Ethical Conduct), 5 CFR part 2635. 80 FR 74004 (Nov. 27, 2015). Subpart B of part 2635 contains the regulations governing the solicitation and acceptance of gifts from outside sources by officers and employees of the Executive Branch. These regulations implement the gift restrictions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7353 and section 101(d) of Executive Order 12674, as modified by Executive Order 12731. The proposed rule was issued following OGE's retrospective review of the regulations found in subpart B, pursuant to section 402(b)(12) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Public Law 95-521, codified at 5 U.S.C. Appendix IV, sec. 402(b)(12). Prior to publishing the proposed rule, OGE consulted with the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Justice in accordance with section 402(b) of the Ethics in Government Act and section 201(a) of Executive Order 12674, as modified by Executive Order 12731, and with other officials throughout the Federal Government.

The proposed rule provided a 60-day comment period, which ended on January 26, 2016. OGE received ten timely and responsive comments, which were submitted by four individuals, three professional associations, two Federal agencies, and a law firm. After carefully considering all comments and making appropriate modifications, and for the reasons set forth below and in the preamble to the proposed rule at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-11-27/pdf/2015-29208.pdf, OGE is publishing this final rule.

II. Summary of Comments and Changes to Proposed Rule General Comments

OGE received one comment from an individual observing that various references to spousal and dating relationships in the examples used dual-gendered relationships and gender-specific pronouns. The commenter expressed concern that such examples could be read as excluding same-sex marriages or relationships. OGE treats same-sex spouses the same as opposite-sex spouses for the purposes of all of its regulations. OGE Legal Advisory LA-13-10 (Aug. 19, 2013). OGE has therefore reviewed the examples highlighted by the commenter and has replaced the terms “husband” and “wife” with the gender-neutral term “spouse.”

Various commenters suggested that one or more of the proposed amendments to the rule might negatively impact the ability of the public to interact with Federal employees. These commenters pointed out the beneficial impact of this interaction and encouraged OGE to consider this equity in drafting gift regulations. As a general matter, OGE agrees with the commenters' proposition that communication between the Government and the public is vital to ensuring that Government decisions are responsive to citizen needs. Public interaction done in a non-preferential manner may: (1) Provide executive branch decisionmakers with information and data they may not otherwise possess; (2) identify policy options and alternatives that may not have been raised internally; and (3) produce better and more thoughtful decisions. These interactions must, however, occur in an environment that promotes the public's confidence in the integrity of Government decisionmaking. When Federal employees accept or solicit gifts from members of the public who have interests that are affected by the employee's agency, the public's confidence can be eroded as “[s]uch gifts may well provide a source of illicit influence over the government official; in any case they create a suspicious and unhealthy appearance.” The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Conflict of Interest and Federal Service 219 (1960). When drafting this final rule, OGE has carefully considered the commenters' concerns in light of the important objective of promoting the public's confidence in the impartial administration of the Government.

§ 2635.201 Overview and Considerations for Declining Otherwise Permissible Gifts

OGE received comments from three sources on proposed § 2635.201(b)(1). Section 2635.201(b)(1) establishes a non-binding standard that can assist employees in considering whether to decline an otherwise permissible gift. The standard encourages employees to consider whether their acceptance of a gift that would otherwise be permissible to accept would nonetheless create the appearance that their integrity or ability to act impartially may be compromised. The duty to avoid such appearances is a responsibility of all executive branch employees. See 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(1); (14).

Based on past experience with executive branch agencies applying subpart B of part 2635, OGE is concerned that employees and ethics officials may not be sufficiently analyzing appearance concerns and, instead, may be focusing exclusively on whether a gift can be accepted under a regulatory gift exception. This kind of analysis may unintentionally overlook other important considerations, such as “whether acceptance of the gift could affect the perceived integrity of the employee or the credibility and legitimacy of [an] agency's programs.” 80 FR 74004, 74004 (Nov. 27, 2015). The non-binding standard in § 2635.201(b)(1) was explicitly included in subpart B to correct for this tendency and to enhance the overall quality of employees' ethical decisionmaking.

Commenters on this section raised concerns with the new standard and the factors for applying the standard. OGE appreciates the concerns raised by commenters, which are examined in detail below. OGE has addressed these concerns by making appropriate adjustments to the standard, rather than adopting some of the commenters' requests for the outright removal of this section. The changes make the standard easier for employees to understand and apply.

A few commenters suggested that ethics training would be more effective than a regulatory change in ensuring that employees consider appearance issues before accepting gifts. OGE fully agrees with the commenters' suggestions that ethics education is important. Without this amendment of the regulation, however, there would not be a uniform standard upon which to base ethics training regarding appearance issues in connection with gifts. Prior to this amendment, the regulation cautioned only that “it is never inappropriate and frequently prudent for an employee to decline a gift,” but the regulation did not articulate an applicable standard or any factors for employees to use in identifying the frequently arising circumstances when it would be prudent to decline a gift. OGE believes it is imperative that the regulatory framework itself enable and encourage employees to meaningfully consider the appearances of accepting gifts. By articulating the standard and relevant factors, the amended § 2635.201(b)(1) will increase the value and uniformity of agency ethics training because that standard and those factors will become a focus of ethics training.

One commenter believed that the proposed standard creates confusion because it moves away from the previous system of bright-line rules regarding gift acceptance. Specifically, the commenter requested that OGE amend the regulation in a way that sets out definitive rules as to whether “a gift is simply permissible or impermissible, without further parsing the permissible gifts into additional categories, i.e., technically permissible and actually permissible.” OGE does not believe that the non-binding standard will create confusion because OGE has maintained the clear, uniform, and objective rules that are found in the current regulation. Section 2635.201(b)(1) augments those rules by encouraging employees to consider the appearances of their actions. The posited distinction between “technically permissible” and “actually permissible” is inaccurate because an employee will not face disciplinary action in the event that someone later subjectively disagrees with the employee's analysis. The bright-line rules provide a floor for ethical behavior, and the appearance analysis under § 2635.201(b) provides a mechanism with which to reach for a stronger, values-based ethical culture. This framework provides the certainty and uniformity of the existing rules, while furthering the underlying objective of increasing public trust by improving the ethical decisionmaking of employees.

The commenters also suggested that employees will feel compelled by this non-binding standard to always decline legally permissible gifts. OGE does not agree that the standard creates a presumption that all legally permissible gifts should be declined. Although some employees will decline legally permissible gifts after carefully analyzing them under the standard that § 2635.201(b)(1) establishes, the standard does not change the fact that the determination as to whether a legally permissible gift should be accepted is the employee's to make. Section 2635.201(b)(1) is designed to increase uniformity and promote public trust by articulating factors, which are informed by the ethical values consistent with the executive branch's Principles of Ethical Conduct, in order to guide the employee's decisionmaking process. This section provides employees an effective means of adequately assessing whether, notwithstanding a gift exception, the specific factual circumstances may raise appearance concerns weighing against acceptance of a gift.

In light of the comments referenced above, however, OGE has streamlined the language of § 2635.201(b). OGE has also clarified the overarching objective of that provision by placing the emphasis in § 2635.201(b)(1) on an assessment as to whether “a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the employee's integrity or impartiality.” In the proposed rule, substantially similar language appeared in the list of factors in § 2635.201(b)(2). Because this language articulates the standard to be applied, however, it is more appropriately included in paragraph (b)(1), which establishes the standard, than in paragraph (b)(2), which provides factors for determining whether the standard has been met. Using this “reasonable person” language in the articulated standard has the added benefit of addressing a commenter's concern regarding the potential for confusion, as executive branch employees have extensive experience applying this particular standard, which has long been used to address appearance concerns under § 2635.502. At the end of § 2635.201(b)(1), OGE has also added “as a result of accepting the gift” in order to tie the appearance concerns to the specific action giving rise to them.

As a final note, one commenter was concerned that the application of the reasonable person standard could vary, resulting in the “unequal application” of the standard. Reliance on a reasonable person standard, however, is not a novel approach in Government ethics. The Standards of Ethical Conduct at part 2635 have successfully employed the reasonable person standard for over two decades. See 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14); 2635.502(a); cf. 2635.702(b) (“that could reasonably be construed”). In fact, when OGE first proposed the Standards of Ethical Conduct in 1991, OGE noted that the use of the reasonable person standard reflected both “case law and longstanding practice,” which “temper the appearance standard by reference to the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.” 56 FR 33778, 33779 (July 23, 1991). OGE explained that the use of the reasonable person standard “is intended to ensure that the conduct of employees is judged by a standard of reasonableness.” Id. That reasoning continues to hold today.

Factors for Applying the § 2635.201(b)(1) Standard

Two commenters requested that OGE remove § 2635.201(b)(2), which sets out factors that employees may consider when determining whether to decline an otherwise permissible gift. These commenters requested the factors be removed because of their concern that the factors listed in § 2635.201(b)(2) are too complex and confusing, and will inevitably lead employees to decline permissible gifts. OGE is sensitive to these concerns and has revised the language to address them.

OGE reviewed each of the proposed factors closely to determine whether any could be removed, streamlined, or changed to eliminate unnecessary complexity or confusion. OGE removed several factors that appeared in the proposed rule on the basis that clarification of the reasonable person standard in § 2635.201(b)(1) in the final rule has rendered them unnecessary:

• Whether acceptance of the gift would lead the employee to feel a sense of obligation to the donor;

• Whether acceptance of the gift would cause a reasonable person to question the employee's ability to act impartially; and

• Whether acceptance of the gift would interfere with the employee's conscientious performance of official duties.

See 80 FR 74004, 74010 (Nov. 27, 2015). At the same time, OGE has added a straightforward factor focusing on whether “[t]he timing of the gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official action,” in order to provide a concrete example intended to remind employees that the timing of a gift can create the appearance that a person is seeking to influence the decisionmaking process.

OGE has also revised the factor articulated at § 2635.201(b)(2)(iv). The proposed language read: “Whether acceptance of the gift would reasonably create an appearance that the employee is providing the donor with preferential treatment or access to the Government.” OGE's intent was that the word “preferential” would be read to modify both “treatment” and “access.” In light of concerns the commenters expressed regarding the clarity of § 2635.201(b)(2) generally, OGE has determined that the proposed language could have been clearer in this respect. In reviewing this language, OGE also noted that the phrase “preferential treatment” is redundant of the phrase “preferential . . . access to the Government,” in that the specific preferential treatment at issue is the preferential access that the donor may be perceived as having received. The concern is that a donor may offer a gift that, by its nature, would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate access to the employee. This concern can arise in connection with gifts such as frequent lunches, trips, social invitations, free attendance at widely attended gatherings, and other items. If such gifts were to result in an employee spending considerable time with a donor, the donor may appear to have inordinate opportunities to discuss matters of interest to the donor and, thereby, unduly influence the employee. Accordingly, OGE has simplified this language and made it more specific. The language at § 2635.201(b)(2)(iv) now reads: “Acceptance of the gift would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate access.” This language should not be read as discouraging employees from attending events merely because they present opportunities to discuss official business. There is no requirement to provide exact parity in all cases with regard to the level of access afforded to those with competing viewpoints, but there is a value in guarding against any person, or multiple persons with a common interest or viewpoint, from enjoying significantly disproportionate access as a result of having given gifts to employees. An employee who is concerned about the level of access provided to those with a particular viewpoint may choose to decline the offered gifts or may take steps to ensure that those with different viewpoints are able to communicate with the employee, such as by taking their telephone calls, agreeing to meet with them in the employee's office, or convening a public forum.

OGE has also removed the following two factors:

• With regard to a gift of free attendance at an event, whether the Government is also providing persons with views or interests that differ from those of the donor with access to the Government;

• With regard to a gift of free attendance at an event, whether the event is open to interested members of the public or representatives of the news media.

80 FR 74004, 74010 (Nov. 27, 2015). Although OGE continues to believe these factors are important when an employee considers any gift of free attendance, their inclusion in § 2635.201(b)(2) is unnecessary given their more limited application. Furthermore, these factors often are most relevant to free attendance at widely attended gatherings under § 2635.204(g), where similar factors already exist.

OGE believes that these changes to § 2635.201(b)(2) diminish the potential for confusion created by the longer list of factors included in the proposed rule while continuing to provide guidance as to how employees should apply the standard in § 2635.201(b)(1) in the areas that OGE believes raise the greatest potential for appearance problems.

Receipt of Independent Advice From an Ethics Official Under § 2635.201(b)(4)

One commenter raised a concern about the language OGE used in § 2635.201(b)(4), which reminds employees to contact an appropriate agency ethics official if they have questions regarding whether acceptance of a gift is permissible and advisable. The commenter was concerned that the statement “[e]mployees who have questions regarding . . . whether the employee should decline a gift that would otherwise be permitted under an exception [emphasis in original],” seemed to indicate that there are “right and wrong” conclusions. OGE has not deleted the reference to advice from an ethics official because the regulation is sufficiently clear that the decision to decline or accept an otherwise permissible gift is the employee's to make. Although consulting an ethics official may assist the employee in making that decision, the regulation does not require such consultation. Section 2635.201(b)(3) explicitly states that an employee who does not decline a permissible gift under § 2635.201(b) has not violated the Standards of Ethical Conduct. At the same time, OGE believes that the reminder as to the availability of ethics advice will prove helpful to employees. Ethics officials can provide employees with valuable insights and guidance in assessing the reasonable person standard in individual cases because they possess experience in Government ethics, awareness as to how the Standards of Ethical Conduct are applied across the agency and across the executive branch, and knowledge of circumstances relevant to evaluating the effect on the public's trust of accepting certain gifts.

Nevertheless, to partly address the commenter's concern, OGE has deleted the reference to § 2635.107(b) at the end of § 2635.201(b)(4). After considering the commenter's concern, OGE recognized that the reference to § 2635.107(b) was potentially confusing because that section provides a safe harbor against disciplinary action in certain circumstances when an employee has consulted an agency ethics official. As § 2635.201(b)(3) makes clear, however, employees may not be disciplined under this provision and have no need for the safe harbor provision in connection with the appearance analysis under § 2635.201(b).

Examples to § 2635.201(b)

One commenter suggested that OGE should add examples to the regulation to indicate how to apply new § 2635.201(b). OGE has added Example 1 to paragraph (b) in order to illustrate how an employee may use the standard and factors found in § 2635.201(b). The same commenter also suggested that OGE provide additional guidance documents to further assist agency officials and employees in understanding how to apply the standard found in § 2635.201(b). OGE intends to provide additional guidance and training as needed on an ongoing basis.

5 CFR 2635.202 General Prohibition on Solicitation or Acceptance of Gifts

OGE received no comments on § 2635.202. OGE is adopting the amendments to this section as proposed for the reasons described in the preamble to the proposed rule. A small change to Example 1 to paragraph (c) was made after the Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. __ 195 L. Ed. 2d 639 (2016), which limited the scope of the term “official act” as used in 18 U.S.C. 201(a)(3).

5 CFR 2635.203 Definitions

OGE received a number of comments on the definitions of the terms “gift,” “market value,” “indirectly solicited or accepted,” and “free attendance.” In regard to the definition of “gift,” all comments focused on the exclusions to the definition. The comments for these terms are separately addressed in greater detail below.

Definition of “Gift”: Exclusion for Modest Items of Food and Refreshment

OGE received three comments on proposed Example 1 to § 2635.203(b)(1). Section 2635.203(b)(1) explains that the definition of “gift” for purposes of subpart B excludes “[m]odest items of food and refreshments, such as soft drinks, coffee and donuts, offered other than as part of a meal.” Proposed Example 1 to paragraph (b)(1) was included for the purpose of making explicit OGE's longstanding interpretation that alcohol is not a modest item of refreshment under § 2635.203(b)(1). Because none of the beverages currently listed in the regulation are alcoholic and the exclusion specifically refers to “soft,” meaning non-alcoholic drinks, OGE has long treated alcoholic beverages as not being part of the class of modest refreshments covered by the exclusion.

All three of the commenters were concerned that the example seemed to indicate that attendance at an event where alcohol is served is per se “improper.” To address this concern, OGE has removed the example altogether and amended the regulatory text of § 2635.203(b)(1) to exclude from the definition of “gift” “[m]odest items of food and non-alcoholic refreshments, such as soft drinks, coffee and donuts, offered other than as part of a meal.” This amendment codifies the interpretation that was previously set out in the proposed example. Although the carve-out from the definition of “gift” at § 2635.203(b)(1) for modest refreshments is limited to non-alcoholic beverages, this limitation does not impact the gift exceptions at 5 CFR 2635.204.

Definition of “Gift”: Exclusion for Greeting Cards and Presentation Items With Little Intrinsic Value

OGE received two comments on the proposed revisions to § 2635.203(b)(2). The first comment, from a professional association, was in favor of the proposal to modify the exclusion for presentation items. The second comment, from an individual, requested that OGE further amend the regulation to state that “items with little intrinsic value . . . intended primarily for presentation” are excluded from the definition of “gift” only if they “do not have significant independent use.” The individual noted that OGE used this phrase in proposed Example 2 to paragraph (b)(2) when explaining why a $25 portable music player would not be excluded from the definition of “gift” under this provision. OGE has decided not to adopt this change. As evidenced by the example, the fact that an item lacks other uses is a legitimate consideration in support of a finding that the item is intended “primarily for presentation.” The regulation does not, however, require that an item lack any potential other use in order to qualify as an item intended “primarily for presentation.”

Definition of “Gift”: Exclusion for Items Purchased by the Government or Secured Under Government Contract

OGE received one comment on the proposed example to § 2635.203(b)(7), which states that Federal employees may retain certain “travel promotional items, such as frequent flyer miles, received as a result of [] official travel, if done in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5702, note, and 41 CFR part 301-53.” The commenter explained: (1) That employees who receive such frequent flyer miles should be encouraged to use such frequent flyer miles for subsequent official travel; and (2) that no personal use should be allowed for employees of the Federal Aviation Administration. OGE has not changed the substance of this example. As explained in the example, Congress passed a statute specifically permitting employees to accept these types of travel-related benefits. The General Services Administration (GSA) has primary authority for implementing that statute, and has done so through regulations found at 41 CFR part 301-53. To partly address the commenter's concern, however, OGE revised the language “if done in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5702, note, and 41 CFR part 301-53,” to read “to the extent permitted by 5 U.S.C. 5702, note, and 41 CFR part 301-53,” in order to clarify that OGE's regulation does not create any new authority for accepting these travel related benefits beyond what Congress and GSA provided for in the statute and the regulation.

Definition of “Gift”: Exclusion for Free Attendance Provided to Employees Speaking in Their Official Capacity and Extension to Personal Capacity Speaking Events

One commenter requested that OGE expand § 2635.203(b)(8) to exclude from the definition of “gift” free attendance at events where employees are speaking in their personal capacity on matters that are unrelated to their duties. The commenter noted that § 2635.203(b)(8) excludes free attendance in connection with official speaking engagements and requested a parallel exclusion for personal speaking engagements. OGE has not adopted this change. Normally, the Standards of Ethical Conduct would not prohibit an employee from accepting free attendance at an event at which the employee has a bona fide arrangement to speak in a personal capacity. This subject is addressed in § 2635.807(a)(2)(iii)(B), which permits employees to accept a waiver of attendance fees for speeches related to their official duties, and OGE has traditionally applied § 2635.202 consistently with that provision of § 2635.807 for speeches unrelated to official duties.

Definition of “Market Value”

OGE received two comments on the proposed amendments to the definition of “market value,” as used throughout the regulation, as well as the examples following the definition. OGE proposed to amend “market value” to mean “the cost that a member of the general public would reasonably expect to incur to purchase the gift.” One commenter was generally in favor of the amendment, as well as the examples illustrating how the definition would be applied in various circumstances. The other commenter noted that Example 4 to paragraph (c) did not explicitly state that the tickets offered to the employee lacked a face value. OGE has amended Example 4 to indicate that the tickets provided to the employee in the example do not have a face value, and therefore the general rule used for calculating the market value of a ticket would not apply. OGE also amended Example 4 to further clarify the method of calculating the market value of such tickets.

Definition of “Indirectly Solicited or Accepted”

OGE received one comment on § 2635.203(f), which establishes when a gift will be deemed to have been accepted or solicited indirectly. The commenter was in favor of OGE's amendment at § 2635.203(f)(2). OGE has adopted the language as proposed for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule.

Definition of “Free Attendance”

OGE received two comments in favor of the proposed subpart-wide definition of “free attendance” at § 2635.203(g). Both commenters supported OGE's amendment allowing employees who are presenting at an event to accept attendance at “speakers' meals” provided by the sponsor of the event. OGE has adopted the language as proposed for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule.

§ 2635.204 Exceptions to the Prohibition for the Acceptance of Certain Gifts

Although OGE did not receive a specific comment on the title of the regulation, OGE has made a technical change to the title of this section for clarity and to more closely track the substance of the regulation.

OGE has also revised the introductory text to remind employees to consider the standard found in § 2635.201(b) when determining whether to rely on an exception. The revised language is modeled on the introductory text found in the current version of § 2635.204, but cross-references § 2635.201(b).

Gifts of $20 or Less

OGE received two comments requesting that OGE raise the regulatory dollar thresholds found in the gift exception at § 2635.204(a). Pursuant to § 2635.204(a), an employee may accept otherwise prohibited gifts not exceeding $20 per occasion so long as he or she does not accept more than $50 worth of gifts from the same person per year. In support of this request, one commenter pointed out the effect that inflation has had on the value of this de minimis threshold.

OGE carefully considered these commenters' suggestions. As OGE explained when it issued the final gift regulations, the de minimis exception was included to remove the need for a “laundry list of exceptions for small, unobjectionable gifts.” 57 FR 35006, 35016 (Aug. 7, 1992). The de minimis exception was intended to provide a uniform means for employees to accept only inexpensive and innocuous gifts on an infrequent basis. Id. OGE believes that the current dollar threshold continues to meet that narrow objective. OGE is concerned that raising the de minimis would encourage employees to accept, and private citizens to give, more expensive and more frequent gifts than employees are currently able to accept. Although some gifts that once fell at the higher end of the spectrum may now be precluded, OGE believes that the $20 threshold continues to be workable, permitting employees to accept on an infrequent basis most of the types of items that can be characterized as inexpensive and innocuous. In addition, the existing exclusions and exceptions from the gift rules permit employees to accept targeted items that are over $20 in carefully restricted circumstances (e.g., a gift from an employee's spouse). See 5 CFR 2635.204(b). Although $20 may not buy the sort of lunch that it bought in 1992 when the regulation was issued, no compelling argument has been made to support a conclusion that raising the cap on the blanket de minimis exception, in order to allow employees to accept more expensive and more frequent gifts, would strengthen the integrity of the executive branch's operations. Accordingly, OGE has decided not to adopt the commenters' suggestions to increase the cap.

Gifts Based on a Personal Relationship

OGE received one comment in support of the new Example 3 to § 2635.204(b), which provides guidance on assessing whether a gift provided by a social media contact falls within the bounds of the gift exception. OGE has adopted the text of § 2635.204(b) substantially as proposed for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule.

Awards and Honorary Degrees

OGE did not make changes based on comments received from two individuals on proposed § 2635.204(d). Section 2635.204(d) permits employees to accept gifts of certain awards and honorary degrees, including items incident to such awards and degrees. The first commenter suggested that OGE relocate the two examples following paragraph (d)(1) so that they would appear after paragraph (d)(2). OGE has not adopted the suggestion. These examples address paragraph (d)(1), which establishes the several requirements for accepting awards, and do not specifically address paragraph (d)(2), which defines the term “established program of recognition.”

The second commenter addressed the acceptance of qualifying honorary degrees from certain “foreign institution[s] of higher education.” See 80 FR 74004, 74007 (Nov. 27, 2015). The commenter suggested that OGE clarify the basis of the Government's concerns regarding the acceptance of emoluments from foreign governments. OGE has not adopted this change because the prohibition stems from the Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const., art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 8. OGE is not the appropriate authority to delineate the basis for specific provisions of the Constitution.

Gifts Based on Outside Business or Employment Relationships

OGE received one comment on the proposed amendments to § 2635.204(e), which sets forth various exceptions to the general prohibitions on accepting and soliciting gifts when such gifts are offered as a result of an outside business or employment relationship. The commenter was generally in favor of the amendments. OGE has retained the exception as proposed for the reasons set out in the preamble to the proposed rule.

Gifts of Free Attendance to Widely Attended Gatherings

OGE received a number of comments related to the exception at § 2635.204(g), permitting employees to accept offers of free attendance to widely attended gatherings (WAGs) if certain criteria are met. In the proposed rule, OGE presented a number of amendments to the WAG, including changes to: (1) Make it clear that an event does not qualify as a WAG if it does not present “an opportunity to exchange ideas and views among invited persons”; (2) require employees to obtain written authorizations before accepting gifts of free attendance at WAGs; and (3) require agency designees to weigh the agency's interest in employees' attendance at WAGs against the possibility that acceptance of gifts of free attendance will influence their decisionmaking or create the appearance that they will be influenced in their decisionmaking.

One commenter expressed concern about the proposed amendment to the definition of “widely attended gatherings.” The proposed language clarifies that events do not qualify as WAGs unless there is “an opportunity to exchange ideas and views among invited persons.” The commenter suggested that this language would narrow the rule to apply to only “panel or roundtable events.” OGE believes that this is a mischaracterization of the regulatory amendment. Nothing in the amendment would narrow the definition exclusively to roundtable or panel events. The amendment reflects only OGE's longstanding interpretation that the event must present an opportunity for an “exchange” or “interchange” of ideas among attendees. See OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 07 x 14 (Dec. 5, 2007).

Several commenters objected to the change requiring written authorizations because it might increase the workload of ethics officials. Three commenters raised workload concerns in connection with the requirement that an employee obtain a written authorization from an agency designee prior to accepting free attendance to a WAG, though one commenter acknowledged that a requirement to obtain written authorization “protects both the employee and the private sector sponsors.” OGE has not eliminated the requirement to obtain written authorization before an employee attends a WAG. Any additional burden on ethics officials will not be so substantial as to outweigh the potential benefits of recording WAG authorizations. In this regard, it is worth noting that agency ethics officials have long been required to make several of the findings required by § 2635.204(g)(3), as proposed. In addition, some agencies have already adopted the practice of recording all WAG authorizations in writing. In any case, most of the work required of ethics officials under the amended regulation will stem from the requirement to make a number of determinations that have always been required under the regulation. After making these determinations, ethics officials have discretion to determine the level of detail to include in the written authorization. The amended regulation does not, however, require a “formal written opinion” as one commenter suggested.

One commenter noted that the amended rule requires agencies to determine in all cases whether “[t]he agency's interest in the employee's attendance outweighs the concern that the employee may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of [his or her] official duties.” The regulation did not previously require this determination in every case, but agency officials have always been charged with evaluating “all the relevant circumstances of any proposed WAG before an employee is authorized to accept free attendance.” OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 07 x 14 (Dec. 5, 2007). The determination now required in all cases is consistent with this preexisting requirement, inasmuch as improper influence, or the appearance of improper influence, would necessarily have been a relevant circumstance to be analyzed under the regulation even prior to the current amendment.

Two commenters expressed concern that ethics officials will approve attendance at fewer events for substantive reasons. However, the new regulation does not significantly change the substantive analysis, which remains focused, as it always has been, on the potential for improper influence and the appearance of improper influence. Disapproval of a gift of free attendance, when an agency has determined that an employee's acceptance of the gift would result in improper influence or the appearance of improper influence, is a proper outcome under any responsible ethics regime.

OGE received two additional comments related to § 2635.204(g). One commenter posited a hypothetical case under § 2635.204(g)(1). OGE is not in a position to assess the interests of a hypothetical agency or other relevant factual circumstances not specified in the commenter's hypothetical. At the request of the other commenter, however, OGE has inserted a reference to the written determination requirement in proposed Example 4 to paragraph (g).

Social Invitations

OGE received one comment from an agency on proposed § 2635.204(h), which permits an employee and accompanying guests to accept certain benefits that are provided at a “social event” so long as the person extending the invitation is not a prohibited source. The proposed rule added a requirement that employees receive a written determination that such attendance would not cause a reasonable person to question the employee's integrity if the event is sponsored by, or the invitation is from, an organization. The commenting agency questioned the purpose of this amendment and suggested that it could increase the workload of agency ethics officials.

Although OGE understands the programmatic consideration raised by the commenter, OGE does not believe that those concerns weigh significantly against the written determination requirement. In many cases, OGE believes that the analysis as to whether a reasonable person would question the employee's integrity or impartiality in attending will be relatively easy to assess, particularly given that the offeror cannot be a prohibited source. Likewise, the standard should be easier to meet if the circumstances indicate that the event is for purely social reasons or is open to a wide variety of attendees. Moreover, ethics officials have discretion to determine the level of detail to include in the written authorization and to choose an appropriate means, such as email, for transmitting the authorization. OGE does not, therefore, believe that the amended regulation will substantially increase the burden on ethics officials. At the same time, there is a heightened risk for, at a minimum, an appearance that the motivation for the gift is to advance a business objective when the sponsor of the event, or offeror of the invitation, is an organization. For this reason, OGE believes that the additional requirement with regard to organizations is warranted.

OGE has made three technical changes to the language of this exception for consistency with other sections and for clarity. First, OGE added the phrase “with knowledge of the relevant facts” to the language in § 2635.204(h)(3), which establishes a reasonable person standard for consistency with the wording of the reasonable person standard in § 2635.201(b) and elsewhere in the Standards of Ethical Conduct. See 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14); 2635.501; 2635.502(a); 2635.502(c). Second, OGE changed “makes” to “has made” in § 2635.204(h)(3) in order to clarify that the determination to allow an employee to attend the social event must be made before the employee actually attends the event. Third, OGE replaced the legal citation to § 2635.201(b) at the end of the social invitations exception with the following plain language phrase: “consistent with § 2635.201(b).” None of these three technical changes alters what OGE intended to be the substantive meaning of the regulation.

Gifts Accepted Under Specific Statutory Authority

OGE has made a technical correction to § 2635.204(l)(1) so that the language tracks the interpreting regulation for 5 U.S.C. 4111 at part 410 of this title.

Informational Materials

Two professional associations and an individual commented on the new exception at § 2635.204(m). The exception permits employees to accept qualifying gifts of informational materials. The exception also sets out certain procedural safeguards and defines what constitutes “informational materials” for the purposes of this provision.

One professional association welcomed the addition of the new exception on the basis that it will allow a flow of useful information to employees. The second professional association also supported the new exception, but requested that OGE amend the rule in two ways: (1) Clarify that the rule would permit the acceptance of “marketing and promotional materials”; and (2) clarify that when a gift of informational materials exceeds $100, an agency may authorize the employee to accept the gift on behalf of the agency if the agency has separate statutory authority. OGE has decided not to revise the proposed exception to include “marketing and promotional materials” as a specific category of acceptable informational materials. Whether an item qualifies for the exception will depend on whether the factual circumstances support a determination that the item offered meets the specific criteria set forth in § 2635.204(m). OGE has likewise decided not to amend the regulatory text to clarify that agencies may accept gifts of informational materials when the gift exceeds $100. Agencies with gift acceptance authorities have established their own procedures and policies regarding the acceptance of such gifts consistent with their interpretations of those authorities, and OGE is not in a position to direct another agency on the use of its gift acceptance authority.

Another commenter raised two general concerns with the regulatory exception. The first concern is that employees who accept informational materials might sell them. Although it might prove somewhat difficult to sell used informational materials, OGE is generally sensitive to the underlying concern expressed by the commenter. To address this concern, OGE has amended the regulation to add an additional limitation on the use of this exception. As revised, the exception will now require employees to obtain written authorization from the agency designee before accepting informational materials from a single person that in the aggregate exceed $100 in a calendar year. The commenter's other concern is that gifts relating to an employee's official duties, the agency's mission, or a subject matter of interest to the agency “ought to be a gift to the Agency.” The commenter questions whether such gifts might be construed as augmenting an agency's appropriations. Such gifts would not implicate augmentation concerns, however, because, as with all of OGE's regulatory gift exceptions, the items accepted are for personal use, not the agency's use.

Following careful review of the regulation, OGE has also reorganized § 2635.204(m) to move the limitations on what constitutes permissible “informational materials” to § 2635.204(m)(2), which contains the definition of “informational materials.” OGE refined the language indicating that, to qualify as “informational material,” an item must be “primarily provided for educational or instructive purposes,” changing it to state more clearly that the item must be “educational or instructive in nature.” As previously written, the regulation could have been misconstrued as requiring employees to ascertain the donor's intent in offering an item. As modified, the regulation now makes clear that the focus is on the objective nature of the gift, and not the subjective intent of the donor. A corresponding change replaces “not including,” with “Are not primarily,” at the beginning of the phrase “Are not primarily created for entertainment, display, or decoration.” This change is intended to avoid excluding items that are clearly educational or instructive in nature but may have some tangential or incidental qualities that could arguably be characterized as entertaining or visually attractive. OGE believes this modification will make the rule easier to understand and apply.

OGE further reorganized the exception to reduce its structural complexity. As proposed, § 2635.204(m) had several tiers, including: a first tier denoted by numbers, such as the number “(2)”; a second tier denoted by lowercase roman numerals, such as the numeral “(ii)”; a third tier denoted by capital letters, such as the letter “(B)”; and a fourth tier denoted again by numbers, such as the number “(2).” By reorganizing the language of this section, OGE was able to eliminate the fourth tier.

OGE has made four other technical changes for consistency and clarity. First, OGE used the word “person” in paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (ii) to be consistent with the language in § 2635.204(a), when aggregating gifts. Second, OGE changed the language “an agency designee makes a written determination that,” at § 2635.204(m)(1)(ii)(B) of the proposed rule, to “an agency designee has made a written determination after finding that,” now at § 2635.204(m)(1)(ii). The change makes the language of this paragraph consistent with the language used in § 2635.204(g)(3) and § 2635.204(h)(3). Third, OGE has added “provided that” to the opening language of § 2635.204(m)(1) in order to clarify that the $100 limit in § 2635.204(m)(1)(i) applies in every case unless an employee first obtains a written determination under § 2635.204(m)(1)(ii). Fourth, OGE has revised the reference to “programs and operations” of the agency so that it reads “programs or operations” of the agency. It was not OGE's intention to require that the subject matter relate to both a program and an operation, or to require that employees somehow distinguish “programs” from “operations.”

5 CFR 2635.205 Limitations on Use of Exceptions

OGE received no comments on § 2635.205. OGE is adopting the amendments to this section as proposed for the reasons set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule. OGE, however, has replaced the period with a semi-colon in the phrase: “Accept a gift in violation of any statute; relevant statutes applicable to all employees include, but are not limited to,” found at § 2635.205(d). OGE has made this change for clarity because paragraph (d) in that section is part of a longer list that is connected by a semi-colon and the word “or” after paragraph (e) in that same section. By eliminating the period, OGE seeks to ensure that the period is not misconstrued as invalidating paragraphs (e) and (f) in the remainder of that list.

5 CFR 2635.206 Proper Disposition of Prohibited Gifts

OGE received four comments on § 2635.206, which explains what steps an employee must take to properly dispose of a prohibited gift. OGE amended this section to provide additional guidance on what steps are required to comply with the disposition authorities. One commenter was generally supportive of the additional guidance provided by OGE. Three commenters expressed concern that OGE's amendment of § 2635.206(a)(1) to allow employees to destroy prohibited tangible gifts worth $100 or less was wasteful. These three commenters also recommended that OGE amend § 2635.206(a)(1) to permit employees to donate prohibited tangible gifts worth $100 or less to charity.

For the following reasons, OGE has not accepted the commenters' suggestions. Allowing the destruction of relatively low-value, tangible gifts provides useful flexibility, while continuing to prohibit employees from retaining impermissible gifts. Setting the value threshold at $100 establishes a reasonable range that imposes minimal administrative burden in determining whether most low value items qualify for destruction. Setting the threshold far below that level would increase transaction costs because official time would necessarily have to be expended researching the precise market value of inexpensive items in order to determine whether they could be destroyed. It bears noting that, as is explained in § 2635.206(a), an employee is not required to destroy prohibited gifts; destruction is only one of several authorized options for disposition. Other options include returning the gift to the donor, paying the donor the gift's market value, or not accepting the gift in the first instance. Whenever the value of an item approaches the higher end of the $100 range, employees and agency ethics officials may be disinclined to destroy the item; in fact, the administrative burden of researching the item's precise market value in order to avoid exceeding the permissible value threshold creates a natural incentive to choose another option for disposition of more expensive items.

Authorizing donations to charity in lieu of destruction would present other problems. OGE has considered and rejected this option in the past. See 57 FR 35006, 35015 (Aug. 7, 1992). Allowing an employee to direct that a gift be donated to a charity of the employee's choosing would be tantamount to permitting constructive receipt of the gift by the employee. OGE is concerned that employees may be able to claim tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Code for gifts donated to charity, in essence receiving the “gift” of a tax deduction in lieu of the original gift. OGE has also explained in the past that permitting donations “would create an incentive for donors to offer employees items they cannot accept and, in the case of highly visible employees, might result in their favorite charities profiting from their official positions.” Id. OGE remains concerned that authorizing donations to charity as a means to dispose of impermissible gifts could incentivize some employees to intentionally accept impermissible gifts for the purpose of donating them to their favorite charities.

OGE has, however, revised § 2635.206(a)(1) for clarity. In the proposed regulation, the first sentence read: “The employee must promptly return any tangible item to the donor, or pay the donor its market value, or, in the case that the tangible item has a market value not in excess of $100, the employee may destroy the item.” In the final regulation, that sentence now reads: “The employee must promptly return any tangible item to the donor or pay the donor its market value; or, in the case of a tangible item with a market value of $100 or less, the employee may destroy the item.” The meaning of the sentence is unchanged, but the revised sentence is easier to understand. In addition, OGE has removed the legal citation at the end of that paragraph, which referred to the definition of “market value” at § 2635.203(c), because the cross reference was unnecessary and potentially confusing to the reader.

III. Matters of Regulatory Procedure Regulatory Flexibility Act

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it primarily affects current Federal executive branch employees.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply because this regulation does not contain information collection requirements that require approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 5, subchapter II), this final rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 12988

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this final rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 2635

Conflict of interests, Executive Branch standards of ethical conduct, Government employees.

Approved: November 3, 2016. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, Office of Government Ethics.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics is amending 5 CFR part 2635, as set forth below:

PART 2635—STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH 1. The authority citation for part 2635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.

2. Revise subpart B of part 2635 to read as follows: Subpart B—Gifts From Outside Sources Sec. 2635.201 Overview and considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts. 2635.202 General prohibition on solicitation or acceptance of gifts. 2635.203 Definitions. 2635.204 Exceptions to the prohibition for acceptance of certain gifts. 2635.205 Limitations on use of exceptions. 2635.206 Proper disposition of prohibited gifts. Subpart B—Gifts From Outside Sources
§ 2635.201 Overview and considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts.

(a) Overview. This subpart contains standards that prohibit an employee from soliciting or accepting any gift from a prohibited source or any gift given because of the employee's official position, unless the item is excluded from the definition of a gift or falls within one of the exceptions set forth in this subpart.

(b) Considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts. (1) Every employee has a fundamental responsibility to the United States and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain. An employee's actions should promote the public's trust that this responsibility is being met. For this reason, employees should consider declining otherwise permissible gifts if they believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the employee's integrity or impartiality as a result of accepting the gift.

(2) An employee who is considering whether acceptance of a gift would lead a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question his or her integrity or impartiality may consider, among other relevant factors, whether:

(i) The gift has a high market value;

(ii) The timing of the gift creates the appearance that the donor is seeking to influence an official action;

(iii) The gift was provided by a person who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties; and

(iv) Acceptance of the gift would provide the donor with significantly disproportionate access.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, an employee who accepts a gift that qualifies for an exception under § 2635.204 does not violate this subpart or the Principles of Ethical Conduct set forth in § 2635.101(b).

(4) Employees who have questions regarding this subpart, including whether the employee should decline a gift that would otherwise be permitted under an exception found in § 2635.204, should seek advice from an agency ethics official.

Example 1 to paragraph (b):

An employee of the Peace Corps is in charge of making routine purchases of office supplies. After a promotional presentation to highlight several new products, a vendor offers to buy the employee lunch, which costs less than $20. The employee is concerned that a reasonable person may question her impartiality in accepting the free lunch, as the timing of the offer indicates that the donor may be seeking to influence an official action and the company has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties. As such, although acceptance of the gift may be permissible under § 2635.204(a), the employee decides to decline the gift.

§ 2635.202 General prohibition on solicitation or acceptance of gifts.

(a) Prohibition on soliciting gifts. Except as provided in this subpart, an employee may not, directly or indirectly:

(1) Solicit a gift from a prohibited source; or

(2) Solicit a gift to be given because of the employee's official position.

(b) Prohibition on accepting gifts. Except as provided in this subpart, an employee may not, directly or indirectly:

(1) Accept a gift from a prohibited source; or

(2) Accept a gift given because of the employee's official position.

(c) Relationship to illegal gratuities statute. A gift accepted pursuant to an exception found in this subpart will not constitute an illegal gratuity otherwise prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(1)(B), unless it is accepted in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. As more fully described in § 2635.205(d)(1), an employee may not solicit or accept a gift if to do so would be prohibited by the Federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201(b).

Example 1 to paragraph (c):

A Government contractor who specializes in information technology software has offered an employee of the Department of Energy's information technology acquisition division a $15 gift card to a local restaurant if the employee will recommend to the agency's contracting officer that she select the contractor's products during the next acquisition. Even though the gift card is less than $20, the employee may not accept the gift under § 2635.204(a) because it is conditional upon official action by the employee. Pursuant to §§ 2635.202(c) and 2635.205(a), notwithstanding any exception to the rule, an employee may not accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act.

§ 2635.203 Definitions.

For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply:

(a) Agency has the meaning set forth in § 2635.102(a). However, for purposes of this subpart, an executive department, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 101, may, by supplemental agency regulation, designate as a separate agency any component of that department which the department determines exercises distinct and separate functions.

(b) Gift includes any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. It includes services as well as gifts of training, transportation, local travel, lodgings and meals, whether provided in-kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred. The term excludes the following:

(1) Modest items of food and non-alcoholic refreshments, such as soft drinks, coffee and donuts, offered other than as part of a meal;

(2) Greeting cards and items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, and trophies, which are intended primarily for presentation;

Example 1 to paragraph (b)(2):

After giving a speech at the facility of a pharmaceutical company, a Government employee is presented with a glass paperweight in the shape of a pill capsule with the name of the company's latest drug and the date of the speech imprinted on the side. The employee may accept the paperweight because it is an item with little intrinsic value which is intended primarily for presentation.

Example 2 to paragraph (b)(2):

After participating in a panel discussion hosted by an international media company, a Government employee is presented with an inexpensive portable music player emblazoned with the media company's logo. The portable music player has a market value of $25. The employee may not accept the portable music player as it has a significant independent use as a music player rather than being intended primarily for presentation.

Example 3 to paragraph (b)(2):

After giving a speech at a conference held by a national association of miners, a Department of Commerce employee is presented with a block of granite that is engraved with the association's logo, a picture of the Appalachian Mountains, the date of the speech, and the employee's name. The employee may accept this item because it is similar to a plaque, is designed primarily for presentation, and has little intrinsic value.

(3) Loans from banks and other financial institutions on terms generally available to the public;

(4) Opportunities and benefits, including favorable rates and commercial discounts, available to the public or to a class consisting of all Government employees or all uniformed military personnel, whether or not restricted on the basis of geographic considerations;

(5) Rewards and prizes given to competitors in contests or events, including random drawings, open to the public unless the employee's entry into the contest or event is required as part of the employee's official duties;

Example 1 to paragraph (b)(5):

A Government employee is attending a free trade show on official time. The trade show is held in a public shopping area adjacent to the employee's office building. The employee voluntarily enters a drawing at an individual vendor's booth which is open to the public. She fills in an entry form on the vendor's display table and drops it into the contest box. The employee may accept the resulting prize because entry into the contest was not required by or related to her official duties.

Example 2 to paragraph (b)(5):

Attendees at a conference, which is not open to the public, are entered in a drawing for a weekend getaway to Bermuda as a result of being registered for the conference. A Government employee who attends the conference in his official capacity could not accept the prize under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, as the event is not open to the public.

(6) Pension and other benefits resulting from continued participation in an employee welfare and benefits plan maintained by a current or former employer;

(7) Anything which is paid for by the Government or secured by the Government under Government contract;

Example 1 to paragraph (b)(7):

An employee at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is assigned to travel away from her duty station to conduct an investigation of a collapse at a construction site. The employee's agency is paying for her travel expenses, including her airfare. The employee may accept and retain travel promotional items, such as frequent flyer miles, received as a result of her official travel, to the extent permitted by 5 U.S.C. 5702, note, and 41 CFR part 301-53.

(8) Free attendance to an event provided by the sponsor of the event to:

(i) An employee who is assigned to present information on behalf of the agency at the event on any day when the employee is presenting;

(ii) An employee whose presence on any day of the event is deemed to be essential by the agency to the presenting employee's participation in the event, provided that the employee is accompanying the presenting employee; and

(iii) The spouse or one other guest of the presenting employee on any day when the employee is presenting, provided that others in attendance will generally be accompanied by a spouse or other guest, the offer of free attendance for the spouse or other guest is unsolicited, and the agency designee, orally or in writing, has authorized the presenting employee to accept;

Example 1 to paragraph (b)(8):

An employee of the Department of the Treasury who is assigned to participate in a panel discussion of economic issues as part of a one-day conference may accept the sponsor's waiver of the conference fee. Under the separate authority of § 2635.204(a), the employee may accept a token of appreciation that has a market value of $20 or less.

Example 2 to paragraph (b)(8):

An employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission is assigned to present the agency's views at a roundtable discussion of an ongoing working group. The employee may accept free attendance to the meeting under paragraph (b)(8) of this section because the employee has been assigned to present information at the meeting on behalf of the agency. If it is determined by the agency that it is essential that another employee accompany the presenting employee to the roundtable discussion, the accompanying employee may also accept free attendance to the meeting under paragraph (b)(8)(ii) of this section.

Example 3 to paragraph (b)(8):

An employee of the United States Trade and Development Agency is invited to attend a cocktail party hosted by a prohibited source. The employee believes that he will have an opportunity to discuss official matters with other attendees while at the event. Although the employee may voluntarily discuss official matters with other attendees, the employee has not been assigned to present information on behalf of the agency. The employee may not accept free attendance to the event under paragraph (b)(8) of this section.

(9) Any gift accepted by the Government under specific statutory authority, including:

(i) Travel, subsistence, and related expenses accepted by an agency under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 1353 in connection with an employee's attendance at a meeting or similar function relating to the employee's official duties which take place away from the employee's duty station, provided that the agency's acceptance is in accordance with the implementing regulations at 41 CFR chapter 304; and

(ii) Other gifts provided in-kind which have been accepted by an agency under its agency gift acceptance statute; and

(10) Anything for which market value is paid by the employee.

(c) Market value means the cost that a member of the general public would reasonably expect to incur to purchase the gift. An employee who cannot ascertain the market value of a gift may estimate its market value by reference to the retail cost of similar items of like quality. The market value of a gift of a ticket entitling the holder to food, refreshments, entertainment, or any other benefit is deemed to be the face value of the ticket.

Example 1 to paragraph (c):

An employee who has been given a watch inscribed with the corporate logo of a prohibited source may determine its market value based on her observation that a comparable watch, not inscribed with a logo, generally sells for about $50.

Example 2 to paragraph (c):

During an official visit to a factory operated by a well-known athletic footwear manufacturer, an employee of the Department of Labor is offered a commemorative pair of athletic shoes manufactured at the factory. Although the cost incurred by the donor to manufacture the shoes was $17, the market value of the shoes would be the $100 that the employee would have to pay for the shoes on the open market.

Example 3 to paragraph (c):

A prohibited source has offered a Government employee a ticket to a charitable event consisting of a cocktail reception to be followed by an evening of chamber music. Even though the food, refreshments, and entertainment provided at the event may be worth only $20, the market value of the ticket is its $250 face value.

Example 4 to paragraph (c):

A company offers an employee of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) free attendance for two to a private skybox at a ballpark to watch a major league baseball game. The skybox is leased annually by the company, which has business pending before the FCC. The skybox tickets provided to the employee do not have a face value. To determine the market value of the tickets, the employee must add the face value of two of the most expensive publicly available tickets to the game and the market value of any food, parking or other tangible benefits provided in connection with the gift of attendance that are not already included in the cost of the most expensive publicly available tickets.

Example 5 to paragraph (c):

An employee of the Department of Agriculture is invited to a reception held by a prohibited source. There is no entrance fee to the reception event or to the venue. To determine the market value of the gift, the employee must add the market value of any entertainment, food, beverages, or other tangible benefit provided to attendees in connection with the reception, but need not consider the cost incurred by the sponsor to rent or maintain the venue where the event is held. The employee may rely on a per-person cost estimate provided by the sponsor of the event, unless the employee or an agency designee has determined that a reasonable person would find that the estimate is clearly implausible.

(d) Prohibited source means any person who:

(1) Is seeking official action by the employee's agency;

(2) Does business or seeks to do business with the employee's agency;

(3) Conducts activities regulated by the employee's agency;

(4) Has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties; or

(5) Is an organization a majority of whose members are described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(e) Given because of the employee's official position. A gift is given because of the employee's official position if the gift is from a person other than an employee and would not have been given had the employee not held the status, authority, or duties associated with the employee's Federal position.

Note to paragraph (e):

Gifts between employees are subject to the limitations set forth in subpart C of this part.

Example 1 to paragraph (e):

Where free season tickets are offered by an opera guild to all members of the Cabinet, the gift is offered because of their official positions.

Example 2 to paragraph (e):

Employees at a regional office of the Department of Justice (DOJ) work in Government-leased space at a private office building, along with various private business tenants. A major fire in the building during normal office hours causes a traumatic experience for all occupants of the building in making their escape, and it is the subject of widespread news coverage. A corporate hotel chain, which does not meet the definition of a prohibited source for DOJ, seizes the moment and announces that it will give a free night's lodging to all building occupants and their families, as a public goodwill gesture. Employees of DOJ may accept, as this gift is not being given because of their Government positions. The donor's motivation for offering this gift is unrelated to the DOJ employees' status, authority, or duties associated with their Federal position, but instead is based on their mere presence in the building as occupants at the time of the fire.

(f) Indirectly solicited or accepted. A gift which is solicited or accepted indirectly includes a gift:

(1) Given with the employee's knowledge and acquiescence to the employee's parent, sibling, spouse, child, dependent relative, or a member of the employee's household because of that person's relationship to the employee; or

(2) Given to any other person, including any charitable organization, on the basis of designation, recommendation, or other specification by the employee, except the employee has not indirectly solicited or accepted a gift by the raising of funds or other support for a charitable organization if done in accordance with § 2635.808.

Example 1 to paragraph (f)(2):

An employee who must decline a gift of a personal computer pursuant to this subpart may not suggest that the gift be given instead to one of five charitable organizations whose names are provided by the employee.

(g) Free attendance includes waiver of all or part of the fee for an event or the provision of food, refreshments, entertainment, instruction or materials furnished to all attendees as an integral part of the event. It does not include travel expenses, lodgings, or entertainment collateral to the event. It does not include meals taken other than in a group setting with all other attendees, unless the employee is a presenter at the event and is invited to a separate meal for participating presenters that is hosted by the sponsor of the event. Where the offer of free attendance has been extended to an accompanying spouse or other guest, the market value of the gift of free attendance includes the market value of free attendance by both the employee and the spouse or other guest.

§ 2635.204 Exceptions to the prohibition for acceptance of certain gifts.

Subject to the limitations in § 2635.205, this section establishes exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in § 2635.202(a) and (b). Even though acceptance of a gift may be permitted by one of the exceptions contained in this section, it is never inappropriate and frequently prudent for an employee to decline a gift if acceptance would cause a reasonable person to question the employee's integrity or impartiality. Section 2635.201(b) identifies considerations for declining otherwise permissible gifts.

(a) Gifts of $20 or less. An employee may accept unsolicited gifts having an aggregate market value of $20 or less per source per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts received from any one person under the authority of this paragraph (a) does not exceed $50 in a calendar year. This exception does not apply to gifts of cash or of investment interests such as stock, bonds, or certificates of deposit. Where the market value of a gift or the aggregate market value of gifts offered on any single occasion exceeds $20, the employee may not pay the excess value over $20 in order to accept that portion of the gift or those gifts worth $20. Where the aggregate value of tangible items offered on a single occasion exceeds $20, the employee may decline any distinct and separate item in order to accept those items aggregating $20 or less.

Example 1 to paragraph (a):

An employee of the Securities and Exchange Commission and his spouse have been invited by a representative of a regulated entity to a community theater production, tickets to which have a face value of $30 each. The aggregate market value of the gifts offered on this single occasion is $60, $40 more than the $20 amount that may be accepted for a single event or presentation. The employee may not accept the gift of the evening of entertainment. He and his spouse may attend the play only if he pays the full $60 value of the two tickets.

Example 2 to paragraph (a):

An employee of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has been invited by an association of cartographers to speak about her agency's role in the evolution of missile technology. At the conclusion of her speech, the association presents the employee a framed map with a market value of $18 and a ceramic mug that has a market value of $15. The employee may accept the map or the mug, but not both, because the aggregate value of these two tangible items exceeds $20.

Example 3 to paragraph (a):

On four occasions during the calendar year, an employee of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) was given gifts worth $10 each by four employees of a corporation that is a DLA contractor. For purposes of applying the yearly $50 limitation on gifts of $20 or less from any one person, the four gifts must be aggregated because a person is defined at § 2635.102(k) to mean not only the corporate entity, but its officers and employees as well. However, for purposes of applying the $50 aggregate limitation, the employee would not have to include the value of a birthday present received from his cousin, who is employed by the same corporation, if he can accept the birthday present under the exception at paragraph (b) of this section for gifts based on a personal relationship.

Example 4 to paragraph (a):

Under the authority of 31 U.S.C. 1353 for agencies to accept payments from non-Federal sources in connection with attendance at certain meetings or similar functions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has accepted an association's gift of travel expenses and conference fees for an employee to attend a conference on the long-term effect of radon exposure. While at the conference, the employee may accept a gift of $20 or less from the association or from another person attending the conference even though it was not approved in advance by the EPA. Although 31 U.S.C. 1353 is the authority under which the EPA accepted the gift to the agency of travel expenses and conference fees, a gift of $20 or less accepted under paragraph (a) of this section is a gift to the employee rather than to her employing agency.

Example 5 to paragraph (a):

During off-duty time, an employee of the Department of Defense (DoD) attends a trade show involving companies that are DoD contractors. He is offered software worth $15 at X Company's booth, a calendar worth $12 at Y Company's booth, and a deli lunch worth $8 from Z Company. The employee may accept all three of these items because they do not exceed $20 per source, even though they total more than $20 at this single occasion.

Example 6 to paragraph (a):

An employee of the Department of Defense (DoD) is being promoted to a higher level position in another DoD office. Six individuals, each employed by a different defense contractor, who have worked with the DoD employee over the years, decide to act in concert to pool their resources to buy her a nicer gift than each could buy her separately. Each defense contractor employee contributes $20 to buy a desk clock for the DoD employee that has a market value of $120. Although each of the contributions does not exceed the $20 limit, the employee may not accept the $120 gift because it is a single gift that has a market value in excess of $20.

Example 7 to paragraph (a):

During a holiday party, an employee of the Department of State is given a $15 store gift card to a national coffee chain by an agency contractor. The employee may accept the card as the market value is less than $20. The employee could not, however, accept a gift card that is issued by a credit card company or other financial institution, because such a card is equivalent to a gift of cash.

(b) Gifts based on a personal relationship. An employee may accept a gift given by an individual under circumstances which make it clear that the gift is motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship rather than the position of the employee. Relevant factors in making such a determination include the history and nature of the relationship and whether the family member or friend personally pays for the gift.

Example 1 to paragraph (b):

An employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has been dating an accountant employed by a member bank. As part of its “Work-Life Balance” program, the bank has given each employee in the accountant's division two tickets to a professional basketball game and has urged each to invite a family member or friend to share the evening of entertainment. Under the circumstances, the FDIC employee may accept the invitation to attend the game. Even though the tickets were initially purchased by the member bank, they were given without reservation to the accountant to use as she wished, and her invitation to the employee was motivated by their personal friendship.

Example 2 to paragraph (b):

Three partners in a law firm that handles corporate mergers have invited an employee of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to join them in a golf tournament at a private club at the firm's expense. The entry fee is $500 per foursome. The employee cannot accept the gift of one-quarter of the entry fee even though he and the three partners have developed an amicable relationship as a result of the firm's dealings with the FTC. As evidenced in part by the fact that the fees are to be paid by the firm, it is not a personal friendship but a business relationship that is the motivation behind the partners' gift.

Example 3 to paragraph (b):

A Peace Corps employee enjoys using a social media site on the internet in his personal capacity outside of work. He has used the site to keep in touch with friends, neighbors, coworkers, professional contacts, and other individuals he has met over the years through both work and personal activities. One of these individuals works for a contractor that provides language services to the Peace Corps. The employee was acting in his official capacity when he met the individual at a meeting to discuss a matter related to the contract between their respective employers. Thereafter, the two communicated occasionally regarding contract matters. They later also granted one another access to join their social media networks through their respective social media accounts. However, they did not communicate further in their personal capacities, carry on extensive personal interactions, or meet socially outside of work. One day, the individual, whose employer continues to serve as a Peace Corps contractor, contacts the employee to offer him a pair of concert tickets worth $30 apiece. Although the employee and the individual are connected through social media, the circumstances do not demonstrate that the gift was clearly motivated by a personal relationship, rather than the position of the employee, and therefore the employee may not accept the gift pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

(c) Discounts and similar benefits. In addition to those opportunities and benefits excluded from the definition of a gift by § 2635.203(b)(4), an employee may accept:

(1) A reduction or waiver of the fees for membership or other fees for participation in organization activities offered to all Government employees or all uniformed military personnel by professional organizations if the only restrictions on membership relate to professional qualifications; and

(2) Opportunities and benefits, including favorable rates, commercial discounts, and free attendance or participation not precluded by paragraph (c)(3) of this section:

(i) Offered to members of a group or class in which membership is unrelated to Government employment;

(ii) Offered to members of an organization, such as an employees' association or agency credit union, in which membership is related to Government employment if the same offer is broadly available to large segments of the public through organizations of similar size; or

(iii) Offered by a person who is not a prohibited source to any group or class that is not defined in a manner that specifically discriminates among Government employees on the basis of type of official responsibility or on a basis that favors those of higher rank or rate of pay.

Example 1 to paragraph (c)(2):

A computer company offers a discount on the purchase of computer equipment to all public and private sector computer procurement officials who work in organizations with over 300 employees. An employee who works as the computer procurement official for a Government agency could not accept the discount to purchase the personal computer under the exception in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. Her membership in the group to which the discount is offered is related to Government employment because her membership is based on her status as a procurement official with the Government.

Example 2 to paragraph (c)(2):

An employee of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may accept a discount of $50 on a microwave oven offered by the manufacturer to all members of the CPSC employees' association. Even though the CPSC is currently conducting studies on the safety of microwave ovens, the $50 discount is a standard offer that the manufacturer has made broadly available through a number of employee associations and similar organizations to large segments of the public.

Example 3 to paragraph (c)(2):

An Assistant Secretary may not accept a local country club's offer of membership to all members of Department Secretariats which includes a waiver of its $5,000 membership initiation fee. Even though the country club is not a prohibited source, the offer discriminates in favor of higher ranking officials.

(3) An employee may not accept for personal use any benefit to which the Government is entitled as the result of an expenditure of Government funds, unless authorized by statute or regulation (e.g., 5 U.S.C. 5702, note, regarding frequent flyer miles).

Example 1 to paragraph (c)(3):

The administrative officer for a field office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has signed an order to purchase 50 boxes of photocopy paper from a supplier whose literature advertises that it will give a free briefcase to anyone who purchases 50 or more boxes. Because the paper was purchased with ICE funds, the administrative officer cannot keep the briefcase which, if claimed and received, is Government property.

(d) Awards and honorary degrees—(1) Awards. An employee may accept a bona fide award for meritorious public service or achievement and any item incident to the award, provided that:

(i) The award and any item incident to the award are not from a person who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties, or from an association or other organization if a majority of its members have such interests; and

(ii) If the award or any item incident to the award is in the form of cash or an investment interest, or if the aggregate value of the award and any item incident to the award, other than free attendance to the event provided to the employee and to members of the employee's family by the sponsor of the event, exceeds $200, the agency ethics official has made a written determination that the award is made as part of an established program of recognition.

Example 1 to paragraph (d)(1):

Based on a written determination by an agency ethics official that the prize meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, an employee of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may accept the Nobel Prize for Medicine, including the cash award which accompanies the prize, even though the prize was conferred on the basis of laboratory work performed at NIH.

Example 2 to paragraph (d)(1):

A defense contractor, ABC Systems, has an annual award program for the outstanding public employee of the year. The award includes a cash payment of $1,000. The award program is wholly funded to ensure its continuation on a regular basis for the next twenty years and selection of award recipients is made pursuant to written standards. An employee of the Department of the Air Force, who has duties that include overseeing contract performance by ABC Systems, is selected to receive the award. The employee may not accept the cash award because ABC Systems has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's official duties.

Example 3 to paragraph (d)(1):

An ambassador selected by a nonprofit organization as a recipient of its annual award for distinguished service in the interest of world peace may, together with his spouse and children, attend the awards ceremony dinner and accept a crystal bowl worth $200 presented during the ceremony. However, where the organization has also offered airline tickets for the ambassador and his family to travel to the city where the awards ceremony is to be held, the aggregate value of the tickets and the crystal bowl exceeds $200, and he may accept only upon a written determination by the agency ethics official that the award is made as part of an established program of recognition.

(2) Established program of recognition. An award and an item incident to the award are made pursuant to an established program of recognition if:

(i) Awards have been made on a regular basis or, if the program is new, there is a reasonable basis for concluding that awards will be made on a regular basis based on funding or funding commitments; and

(ii) Selection of award recipients is made pursuant to written standards.

(3) Honorary degrees. An employee may accept an honorary degree from an institution of higher education, as defined at 20 U.S.C. 1001, or from a similar foreign institution of higher education, based on a written determination by an agency ethics official that the timing of the award of the degree would not cause a reasonable person to question the employee's impartiality in a matter affecting the institution.

Note to paragraph (d)(3):

When the honorary degree is offered by a foreign institution of higher education, the agency may need to make a separate determination as to whether the institution of higher education is a foreign government for purposes of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 9, cl. 8), which forbids employees from accepting emoluments, presents, offices, or titles from foreign governments, without the consent of Congress. The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. 7342, however, may permit the acceptance of honorary degrees in some circumstances.

Example 1 to paragraph (d)(3):

A well-known university located in the United States wishes to give an honorary degree to the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary may accept the honorary degree only if an agency ethics official determines in writing that the timing of the award of the degree would not cause a reasonable person to question the Secretary's impartiality in a matter affecting the university.

(4) Presentation events. An employee who may accept an award or honorary degree pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) or (3) of this section may also accept free attendance to the event provided to the employee and to members of the employee's family by the sponsor of an event. In addition, the employee may also accept unsolicited offers of travel to and from the event provided to the employee and to members of the employee's family by the sponsor of the event. Travel expenses accepted under this paragraph (d)(4) must be added to the value of the award for purposes of determining whether the aggregate value of the award exceeds $200.

(e) Gifts based on outside business or employment relationships. An employee may accept meals, lodgings, transportation and other benefits:

(1) Resulting from the business or employment activities of an employee's spouse when it is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the employee's official position;

Example 1 to paragraph (e)(1):

A Department of Agriculture employee whose spouse is a computer programmer employed by a Department of Agriculture contractor may attend the company's annual retreat for all of its employees and their families held at a resort facility. However, under § 2635.502, the employee may be disqualified from performing official duties affecting her spouse's employer.

Example 2 to paragraph (e)(1):

Where the spouses of other clerical personnel have not been invited, an employee of the Defense Contract Audit Agency whose spouse is a clerical worker at a defense contractor may not attend the contractor's annual retreat in Hawaii for corporate officers and members of the board of directors, even though his spouse received a special invitation for herself and the employee.

(2) Resulting from the employee's outside business or employment activities when it is clear that such benefits are based on the outside business or employment activities and have not been offered or enhanced because of the employee's official status;

Example 1 to paragraph (e)(2):

The members of an Army Corps of Engineers environmental advisory committee that meets six times per year are special Government employees. A member who has a consulting business may accept an invitation to a $50 dinner from her corporate client, an Army construction contractor, unless, for example, the invitation was extended in order to discuss the activities of the advisory committee.

(3) Customarily provided by a prospective employer in connection with bona fide employment discussions. If the prospective employer has interests that could be affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties, acceptance is permitted only if the employee first has complied with the disqualification requirements of subpart F of this part applicable when seeking employment; or

Example 1 to paragraph (e)(3):

An employee of the Federal Communications Commission with responsibility for drafting regulations affecting all cable television companies wishes to apply for a job opening with a cable television holding company. Once she has properly disqualified herself from further work on the regulations as required by subpart F of this part, she may enter into employment discussions with the company and may accept the company's offer to pay for her airfare, hotel, and meals in connection with an interview trip.

(4) Provided by a former employer to attend a reception or similar event when other former employees have been invited to attend, the invitation and benefits are based on the former employment relationship, and it is clear that such benefits have not been offered or enhanced because of the employee's official position.

Example 1 to paragraph (e)(4):

An employee of the Department of the Army is invited by her former employer, an Army contractor, to attend its annual holiday dinner party. The former employer traditionally invites both its current and former employees to the holiday dinner regardless of their current employment activities. Under these circumstances, the employee may attend the dinner because the dinner invitation is a result of the employee's former outside employment activities, other former employees have been asked to attend, and the gift is not offered because of the employee's official position.

(5) For purposes of paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, “employment” means any form of non-Federal employment or business relationship involving the provision of personal services.

(f) Gifts in connection with political activities permitted by the Hatch Act Reform Amendments. An employee who, in accordance with the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, at 5 U.S.C. 7323, may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, may accept meals, lodgings, transportation, and other benefits, including free attendance at events, for the employee and an accompanying spouse or other guests, when provided, in connection with such active participation, by a political organization described in 26 U.S.C. 527(e). Any other employee, such as a security officer, whose official duties require him or her to accompany an employee to a political event, may accept meals, free attendance, and entertainment provided at the event by such an organization.

Example 1 to paragraph (f):

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services may accept an airline ticket and hotel accommodations furnished by the campaign committee of a candidate for the United States Senate in order to give a speech in support of the candidate.

(g) Gifts of free attendance at widely attended gatherings—(1) Authorization. When authorized in writing by the agency designee pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this section, an employee may accept an unsolicited gift of free attendance at all or appropriate parts of a widely attended gathering. For an employee who is subject to a leave system, attendance at the event will be on the employee's own time or, if authorized by the employee's agency, on excused absence pursuant to applicable guidelines for granting such absence, or otherwise without charge to the employee's leave account.

(2) Widely attended gatherings. A gathering is widely attended if it is expected that a large number of persons will attend, that persons with a diversity of views or interests will be present, for example, if it is open to members from throughout the interested industry or profession or if those in attendance represent a range of persons interested in a given matter, and that there will be an opportunity to exchange ideas and views among invited persons.

(3) Written authorization by the agency designee. The agency designee may authorize an employee or employees to accept a gift of free attendance at all or appropriate parts of a widely attended gathering only if the agency designee issues a written determination after finding that:

(i) The event is a widely attended gathering, as set forth in paragraph (g)(2) of this section;

(ii) The employee's attendance at the event is in the agency's interest because it will further agency programs or operations;

(iii) The agency's interest in the employee's attendance outweighs the concern that the employee may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of official duties; and

(iv) If a person other than the sponsor of the event invites or designates the employee as the recipient of the gift of free attendance and bears the cost of that gift, the event is expected to be attended by more than 100 persons and the value of the gift of free attendance does not exceed $375.

(4) Determination of agency interest. In determining whether the agency's interest in the employee's attendance outweighs the concern that the employee may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of official duties, the agency designee may consider relevant factors including:

(i) The importance of the event to the agency;

(ii) The nature and sensitivity of any pending matter affecting the interests of the person who extended the invitation and the significance of the employee's role in any such matter;

(iii) The purpose of the event;

(iv) The identity of other expected participants;

(v) Whether acceptance would reasonably create the appearance that the donor is receiving preferential treatment;

(vi) Whether the Government is also providing persons with views or interests that differ from those of the donor with access to the Government; and

(vii) The market value of the gift of free attendance.

(5) Cost provided by person other than the sponsor of the event. The cost of the employee's attendance will be considered to be provided by a person other than the sponsor of the event where such person designates the employee to be invited and bears the cost of the employee's attendance through a contribution or other payment intended to facilitate the employee's attendance. Payment of dues or a similar assessment to a sponsoring organization does not constitute a payment intended to facilitate a particular employee's attendance.

(6) Accompanying spouse or other guest. When others in attendance will generally be accompanied by a spouse or other guest, and where the invitation is from the same person who has invited the employee, the agency designee may authorize an employee to accept an unsolicited invitation of free attendance to an accompanying spouse or one other accompanying guest to participate in all or a portion of the event at which the employee's free attendance is permitted under paragraph (g)(1) this section. The authorization required by this paragraph (g)(6) must be provided in writing.

Example 1 to paragraph (g):

An aerospace industry association that is a prohibited source sponsors an industry-wide, two-day seminar for which it charges a fee of $800 and anticipates attendance of approximately 400. An Air Force contractor pays $4,000 to the association so that the association can extend free invitations to five Air Force officials designated by the contractor. The Air Force officials may not accept the gifts of free attendance because (a) the contractor, rather than the association, provided the cost of their attendance; (b) the contractor designated the specific employees to receive the gift of free attendance; and (c) the value of the gift exceeds $375 per employee.

Example 2 to paragraph (g):

An aerospace industry association that is a prohibited source sponsors an industry-wide, two-day seminar for which it charges a fee of $25 and anticipates attendance of approximately 50. An Air Force contractor pays $125 to the association so that the association can extend free invitations to five Air Force officials designated by the contractor. The Air Force officials may not accept the gifts of free attendance because (a) the contractor, rather than the association, provided the cost of their attendance; (b) the contractor designated the specific employees to receive the gift of free attendance; and (c) the event was not expected to be attended by more than 100 persons.

Example 3 to paragraph (g):

An aerospace industry association that is a prohibited source sponsors an industry-wide, two-day seminar for which it charges a fee of $800 and anticipates attendance of approximately 400. An Air Force contractor pays $4,000 in order that the association might invite any five Federal employees. An Air Force official to whom the sponsoring association, rather than the contractor, extended one of the five invitations could attend if the employee's participation were determined to be in the interest of the agency and he received a written authorization.

Example 4 to paragraph (g):

An employee of the Department of Transportation is invited by a news organization to an annual press dinner sponsored by an association of press organizations. Tickets for the event cost $375 per person and attendance is limited to 400 representatives of press organizations and their guests. If the employee's attendance is determined to be in the interest of the agency and she receives a written authorization from the agency designee, she may accept the invitation from the news organization because more than 100 persons will attend and the cost of the ticket does not exceed $375. However, if the invitation were extended to the employee and an accompanying guest, the employee's guest could not be authorized to attend for free because the market value of the gift of free attendance would exceed $375.

Example 5 to paragraph (g):

An employee of the Department of Energy (DOE) and his spouse have been invited by a major utility executive to a small dinner party. A few other officials of the utility and their spouses or other guests are also invited, as is a representative of a consumer group concerned with utility rates and her spouse. The DOE official believes the dinner party will provide him an opportunity to socialize with and get to know those in attendance. The employee may not accept the free invitation under this exception, even if his attendance could be determined to be in the interest of the agency. The small dinner party is not a widely attended gathering. Nor could the employee be authorized to accept even if the event were instead a corporate banquet to which forty company officials and their spouses or other guests were invited. In this second case, notwithstanding the larger number of persons expected (as opposed to the small dinner party just noted) and despite the presence of the consumer group representative and her spouse who are not officials of the utility, those in attendance would still not represent a diversity of views or interests. Thus, the company banquet would not qualify as a widely attended gathering under those circumstances either.

Example 6 to paragraph (g):

An Assistant U.S. Attorney is invited to attend a luncheon meeting of a local bar association to hear a distinguished judge lecture on cross-examining expert witnesses. Although members of the bar association are assessed a $15 fee for the meeting, the Assistant U.S. Attorney may accept the bar association's offer to attend for free, even without a determination of agency interest. The gift can be accepted under the $20 gift exception at paragraph (a) of this section.

Example 7 to paragraph (g):

An employee of the Department of the Interior authorized to speak on the first day of a four-day conference on endangered species may accept the sponsor's waiver of the conference fee for the first day of the conference under § 2635.203(b)(8). If the conference is widely attended, the employee may be authorized to accept the sponsor's offer to waive the attendance fee for the remainder of the conference if the agency designee has made a written determination that attendance is in the agency's interest.

Example 8 to paragraph (g):

A military officer has been approved to attend a widely attended gathering, pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, that will be held in the same city as the officer's duty station. The defense contractor sponsoring the event has offered to transport the officer in a limousine to the event. The officer may not accept the offer of transportation because the definition of “free attendance” set forth in § 2635.203(g) excludes travel, and the market value of the transportation would exceed $20.

(h) Social invitations. An employee may accept food, refreshments, and entertainment, not including travel or lodgings, for the employee and an accompanying spouse or other guests, at a social event attended by several persons if:

(1) The invitation is unsolicited and is from a person who is not a prohibited source;

(2) No fee is charged to any person in attendance; and

(3) If either the sponsor of the event or the person extending the invitation to the employee is not an individual, the agency designee has made a written determination after finding that the employee's attendance would not cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question the employee's integrity or impartiality, consistent with § 2635.201(b).

Example 1 to paragraph (h):

An employee of the White House Press Office has been invited to a social dinner for current and former White House Press Officers at the home of an individual who is not a prohibited source. The employee may attend even if she is being invited because of her official position.

(i) Meals, refreshments, and entertainment in foreign areas. An employee assigned to duty in, or on official travel to, a foreign area as defined in 41 CFR 300-3.1 may accept unsolicited food, refreshments, or entertainment in the course of a breakfast, luncheon, dinner, or other meeting or event provided:

(1) The market value in the foreign area of the food, refreshments or entertainment provided at the meeting or event, as converted to U.S. dollars, does not exceed the per diem rate for the foreign area specified in the U.S. Department of State's Maximum Per Diem Allowances for Foreign Areas, Per Diem Supplement Section 925 to the Standardized Regulations (GC-FA), available on the Internet at www.state.gov;

(2) There is participation in the meeting or event by non-U.S. citizens or by representatives of foreign governments or other foreign entities;

(3) Attendance at the meeting or event is part of the employee's official duties to obtain information, disseminate information, promote the export of U.S. goods and services, represent the United States, or otherwise further programs or operations of the agency or the U.S. mission in the foreign area; and

(4) The gift of meals, refreshments, or entertainment is from a person other than a foreign government as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7342(a)(2).

Example 1 to paragraph (i):

A number of local business owners in a developing country are eager for a U.S. company to locate a manufacturing facility in their province. An official of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation may accompany the visiting vice president of the U.S. company to a dinner meeting hosted by the business owners at a province restaurant where the market value of the food and refreshments does not exceed the per diem rate for that country.

(j) Gifts to the President or Vice President. Because of considerations relating to the conduct of their offices, including those of protocol and etiquette, the President or the Vice President may accept any gift on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any family member, provided that such acceptance does not violate § 2635.205(a) or (b), 18 U.S.C. 201(b) or 201(c)(3), or the Constitution of the United States.

(k) Gifts authorized by supplemental agency regulation. An employee may accept any gift when acceptance of the gift is specifically authorized by a supplemental agency regulation issued with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics, pursuant to § 2635.105.

(l) Gifts accepted under specific statutory authority. The prohibitions on acceptance of gifts from outside sources contained in this subpart do not apply to any item which a statute specifically authorizes an employee to accept. Gifts which may be accepted by an employee under the authority of specific statutes include, but are not limited to:

(1) Free attendance, course or meeting materials, transportation, lodgings, food and refreshments or reimbursements therefor incident to training or meetings when accepted by the employee under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 4111. The employee's acceptance must be approved by the agency in accordance with part 410 of this title; or

(2) Gifts from a foreign government or international or multinational organization, or its representative, when accepted by the employee under the authority of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. 7342. As a condition of acceptance, an employee must comply with requirements imposed by the agency's regulations or procedures implementing that Act.

(m) Gifts of informational materials. (1) An employee may accept unsolicited gifts of informational materials, provided that:

(i) The aggregate market value of all informational materials received from any one person does not exceed $100 in a calendar year; or

(ii) If the aggregate market value of all informational materials from the same person exceeds $100 in a calendar year, an agency designee has made a written determination after finding that acceptance by the employee would not be inconsistent with the standard set forth in § 2635.201(b).

(2) Informational materials are writings, recordings, documents, records, or other items that:

(i) Are educational or instructive in nature;

(ii) Are not primarily created for entertainment, display, or decoration; and

(iii) Contain information that relates in whole or in part to the following categories:

(A) The employee's official duties or position, profession, or field of study;

(B) A general subject matter area, industry, or economic sector affected by or involved in the programs or operations of the agency; or

(C) Another topic of interest to the agency or its mission.

Example 1 to paragraph (m):

An analyst at the Agricultural Research Service receives an edition of an agricultural research journal in the mail from a consortium of private farming operations concerned with soil toxicity. The journal edition has a market value of $75. The analyst may accept the gift.

Example 2 to paragraph (m):

An inspector at the Mine Safety and Health Administration receives a popular novel with a market value of $25 from a mine operator. Because the novel is primarily for entertainment purposes, the inspector may not accept the gift.

Example 3 to paragraph (m):

An employee at the Department of the Army is offered an encyclopedia on cyberwarfare from a prohibited source. The cost of the encyclopedia is far in excess of $100. The agency designee determines that acceptance of the gift would be inconsistent with the standard set out in § 2635.201(b). The employee may not accept the gift under paragraph (m) of this section.

§ 2635.205 Limitations on use of exceptions.

Notwithstanding any exception provided in this subpart, other than § 2635.204(j), an employee may not:

(a) Accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act;

(b) Use, or permit the use of, the employee's Government position, or any authority associated with public office, to solicit or coerce the offering of a gift;

(c) Accept gifts from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would be led to believe the employee is using the employee's public office for private gain;

Example 1 to paragraph (c):

A purchasing agent for a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center routinely deals with representatives of pharmaceutical manufacturers who provide information about new company products. Because of his crowded calendar, the purchasing agent has offered to meet with manufacturer representatives during his lunch hours Tuesdays through Thursdays, and the representatives routinely arrive at the employee's office bringing a sandwich and a soft drink for the employee. Even though the market value of each of the lunches is less than $6 and the aggregate value from any one manufacturer does not exceed the $50 aggregate limitation in § 2635.204(a) on gifts of $20 or less, the practice of accepting even these modest gifts on a recurring basis is improper.

(d) Accept a gift in violation of any statute; relevant statutes applicable to all employees include, but are not limited to:

(1) 18 U.S.C. 201(b), which prohibits a public official from, directly or indirectly, corruptly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act; being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or for being induced to do or omit to do any action in violation of his or her official duty. As used in 18 U.S.C. 201(b), the term “public official” is broadly construed and includes regular and special Government employees as well as all other Government officials; and

(2) 18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits an employee, other than a special Government employee, from receiving any salary or any contribution to or supplementation of salary from any source other than the United States as compensation for services as a Government employee. The statute contains several specific exceptions to this general prohibition, including an exception for contributions made from the treasury of a State, county, or municipality;

(e) Accept a gift in violation of any Executive Order; or

(f) Accept any gift when acceptance of the gift is specifically prohibited by a supplemental agency regulation issued with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics, pursuant to § 2635.105.

§ 2635.206 Proper disposition of prohibited gifts.

(a) Unless a gift is accepted by an agency acting under specific statutory authority, an employee who has received a gift that cannot be accepted under this subpart must dispose of the gift in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section. The employee must promptly complete the authorized disposition of the gift. The obligation to dispose of a gift that cannot be accepted under this subpart is independent of an agency's decision regarding corrective or disciplinary action under § 2635.106.

(1) Gifts of tangible items. The employee must promptly return any tangible item to the donor or pay the donor its market value; or, in the case of a tangible item with a market value of $100 or less, the employee may destroy the item. An employee who cannot ascertain the actual market value of an item may estimate its market value by reference to the retail cost of similar items of like quality.

Example 1 to paragraph (a)(1):

A Department of Commerce employee received a $25 T-shirt from a prohibited source after providing training at a conference. Because the gift would not be permissible under an exception to this subpart, the employee must either return or destroy the T-shirt or promptly reimburse the donor $25. Destruction may be carried out by physical destruction or by permanently discarding the T-shirt by placing it in the trash.

Example 2 to paragraph (a)(1):

To avoid public embarrassment to the seminar sponsor, an employee of the National Park Service did not decline a barometer worth $200 given at the conclusion of his speech on Federal lands policy. To comply with this section, the employee must either promptly return the barometer or pay the donor the market value of the gift. Alternatively, the National Park Service may choose to accept the gift if permitted under specific statutory gift acceptance authority. The employee may not destroy this gift, as the market value is in excess of $100.

(2) Gifts of perishable items. When it is not practical to return a tangible item in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section because the item is perishable, the employee may, at the discretion of the employee's supervisor or the agency designee, give the item to an appropriate charity, share the item within the recipient's office, or destroy the item.

Example 1 to paragraph (a)(2):

With approval by the recipient's supervisor, a floral arrangement sent by a disability claimant to a helpful employee of the Social Security Administration may be placed in the office's reception area.

(3) Gifts of intangibles. The employee must promptly reimburse the donor the market value for any entertainment, favor, service, benefit or other intangible. Subsequent reciprocation by the employee does not constitute reimbursement.

Example 1 to paragraph (a)(3):

A Department of Defense employee wishes to attend a charitable event to which he has been offered a $300 ticket by a prohibited source. Although his attendance is not in the interest of the agency under § 2635.204(g), he may attend if he reimburses the donor the $300 face value of the ticket.

(4) Gifts from foreign governments or international organizations. The employee must dispose of gifts from foreign governments or international organizations in accordance with 41 CFR part 102-42.

(b) An agency may authorize disposition or return of gifts at Government expense. Employees may use penalty mail to forward reimbursements required or permitted by this section.

(c) An employee who, on his or her own initiative, promptly complies with the requirements of this section will not be deemed to have improperly accepted an unsolicited gift. An employee who promptly consults his or her agency ethics official to determine whether acceptance of an unsolicited gift is proper and who, upon the advice of the ethics official, returns the gift or otherwise disposes of the gift in accordance with this section, will be considered to have complied with the requirements of this section on the employee's own initiative.

(d) Employees are encouraged to record any actions they have taken to properly dispose of gifts that cannot be accepted under this subpart, such as by sending an electronic mail message to the appropriate agency ethics official or the employee's supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2016-27036 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1471 RIN 0551-AA90 Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund and Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund AGENCY:

Foreign Agricultural Service and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule makes amendments to the final rule, with request for comments, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2015, that established regulations for the Pima Agriculture Cotton Trust Fund (Agriculture Pima Trust) and the Agriculture Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund (Agriculture Wool Trust) programs. This final rule is amended based on comments received and to add details for the Refund of Duties Paid on Imports of Certain Wool Products (Wool Duty Refund) payment. The administration of the Wool Duty Refund payment was transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) beginning in calendar year (CY) 2016 and assigned to the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). It was previously administered by the Customs and Border Protection Agency of the Department of Homeland Security.

DATES:

This final rule is effective November 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter W. Burr, Import Policies and Export Reporting Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA; email: [email protected], 202-720-3274.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On March 9, 2015, FAS published a final rule, with request for comments, in the Federal Register (80 FR 12321) for the Agriculture Pima Trust and the Agriculture Wool Trust programs. The final rule, with request for comments, was published under RIN 0551-AA86. The final rule, with request for comments, established regulations and sought comments for the Agriculture Pima Trust program and for three of the four payments under the Agriculture Wool Trust program. The Agriculture Pima Trust and Agriculture Wool Trust programs were established in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill). The Farm Bill transferred to USDA the responsibility for administering the Agriculture Pima Trust and three of the four payments under the Agriculture Wool Trust beginning in 2015, but transferred the fourth payment, the Wool Duty Refund, beginning in 2016.

Discussion of Comments

The following is a summary and discussion of the comments received relative to the Agriculture Pima Trust and the Agriculture Wool Trust programs along with the reasoning for the revisions made.

General

A commenter suggested that applicants not be required as noted in § 1471.1(b)(3)(iii), § 1471.1(b)(4), § 1471.10(b)(3)(iii), and § 1471.10(b)(4), to annually file IRS forms W-9 (U.S. person or resident alien) or the 1199A (direct deposit) with an application for either the Agriculture Pima Trust or Agriculture Wool Trust programs unless a change in the applicant's W-9 or 1199A information had occurred when compared to their previous year's application. This was deemed to be reasonable. Beginning in 2017, IRS forms W-9 and 1199A will only need to be filed if changes in the information have occurred.

A commenter noted that a technical correction is necessary in paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 1471.2(c) by closing the parentheticals after the word “insurance.” This correction will be made.

Payments to Manufacturers of Certain Worsted Wool Fabrics

A commenter identified an error common to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) of § 1471.11, Payments to manufacturers of certain worsted wool fabrics. The payment formula for payments to eligible persons is provided for under this section. The payment formula mistakenly states in paragraph (ii) that payments will be calculated based on the eligible person's production in the preceding year. However, the payments are actually based on the eligible person's production of qualifying worsted wool fabric during calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001. This correction will be made.

Free Trade Zones

A commenter suggested that the scope of the monetization of the wool tariff rate quota payment as noted under § 1471.13(a)(2)(i) be expanded to include eligible entities, that are manufacturers and would otherwise be eligible for monetization payments, that import qualifying worsted wool into a free trade zone (FTZ), cut the wool and use it to make worsted wool suits for men and boys within the FTZ.

The monetization payment requires that the eligible entities receiving a monetization payment (1) import into the Customs territory of the United States the qualifying worsted wool directly or indirectly; (2) manufacture in the United States the qualifying worsted wool into worsted wool suits for men and boys; and (3) own the worsted wool at the time it's cut and manufactured.

An entity that manufactures the suits in an FTZ and does not export from the FTZ into the Customs territory of the United States the qualifying worsted wool directly or indirectly, does not qualify for this benefit because by definition the entity avoided paying the import duty on the qualifying worsted wool. However, an eligible entity that manufacturers the suits in an FTZ and exports into the Customs territory of the United States the qualifying worsted wool directly or indirectly and thus pays the import duty on the qualifying worsted wool, does qualify for this benefit. For the purpose of the monetization payment, the worsted wool suits for men and boys are manufactured in the U.S. and all environmental, worker safety, and wage protection laws, etc., would apply to this manufacturer.

USDA will also broaden the scope of eligible entities as it pertains to the wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top compensation payment found at § 1471.14(a)(2)(i) to include those operating within a FTZ.

Definition of Eligible Person

A commenter suggested that the definition of an eligible person found at § 1471.13(a)(2)(i) in the monetization of the wool tariff rate quota payment be modified to allow an eligible person to claim the annual dollar value and quantity of imported qualifying worsted wool fabric cut and sewn if the eligible person owned the wool at the time it was cut and sewn, whether the person actually cut and sewed the imported qualifying worsted wool or another person cut and sewed the wool on behalf of the eligible person. This was deemed reasonable and is already allowed under § 1471.13(d)(3)(i)(A) and (d)(3)(ii)(A).

USDA will also make this change as it pertains to the wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top duty compensation payment found at § 1471.14(a)(2)(i).

Reporting of Direct Imports

A commenter suggested that applicants for the monetization of the wool tariff rate quota payment not be required to include direct imports on their annual application for this payment. The commenter's suggestion was based on their observance that countries of origin of imported qualifying worsted wool by direct importers is included on the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) form #7501, which is provided to the Secretary of Treasury every year, and thus it was redundant to also require this information to be included on the affirmation part of the annual application. Even though this information is provided to CBP each year, USDA will maintain the requirement as found at § 1471.13(d)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) that applicants for the monetization of the wool tariff rate quota payment include their direct and indirect imports on their annual application. Including direct and indirect imports on the application for this payment will make it easier for USDA to process the annual payments and to distribute them in a timely manner.

Importers Versus Manufacturers

Regarding the monetization of the wool tariff rate quota payment, found at § 1471.13(a)(2), a commenter suggested that the definitions of eligible person and qualifying worsted wool, a provision eliciting specific business information, and the scope of the affirmation, be expanded to include all importers of qualifying worsted wool suitable for worsted wool suits, as opposed to importers of qualifying worsted wool that actually used the wool to make suits for men or boys. To support the commenter's position, the commenter cited statutory references to types of worsted wool fabrics categorized under the harmonized tariff schedule (HTS). However the commenter conflates statutory provisions authorizing the tariffs for HTS categories of worsted wool suitable for wool suits with defining the universe of eligible manufacturers who import qualifying worsted wool and are eligible for payments under this program. The wool tariff rate quota administered by the Secretary of Commerce, until its statutory sunset in 2014, in fact required that to benefit from the tariff reduction, the worsted wool had to be actually used for worsted wool suits. This monetization program provides payments to manufacturers who formerly benefitted from the tariff reduction. The requirement in the monetization payment that the qualifying worsted wool must be used by the manufacturer receiving the payment to make suits for men and boys will remain unchanged.

A commenter made a suggestion regarding the wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top duty compensation payment found at § 1471.14(a)(2) that is similar to the comment above. The commenter suggested that the definitions of eligible person and qualifying wool, a provision eliciting specific business information, and the scope of the affirmation, be expanded from manufacturers that directly or indirectly imported qualifying wool and manufactured the qualifying wool, to include all importers of qualifying wool (whether or not the importer was also the manufacturer of the wool). To support this position, the commenter referred to statutory authority that did not require importers of qualifying wool to also be manufacturers of the qualifying wool. The commenter further stated that the wool duty refund program, of which only manufacturers of qualifying wool have participated, did not impose the requirement that the entity actually manufacture the qualifying wool. However the commenter is incorrect about what the statutory authority actually provides, and conflates extension of the duty suspension (that was applicable to all importers, regardless of whether they also manufactured men's and boy's wool suits) in section 5102 of the Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210 and the wool duty refund payment program (that applied only to manufacturers of men's and boy's wool suits) in section 5101 of the Trade Act of 2002. The duty refund program administered by the U.S. Customs Service and by Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security from 2002-2014 required that the importer must also be the manufacturer of the qualifying wool. The requirements in the wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top duty compensation payment that the qualifying wool must be imported and must also be used for further manufacturing by the importing manufacturer will remain unchanged.

Refund of Duties Paid on Imports of Certain Wool Products

The Wool Duty Refund payment found at § 1471.12 was administered by the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through 2015. In the Farm Bill, the Wool Duty Refund payment was established for the year 2016 through 2019 and was transferred to USDA. The Wool Duty Refund payment is open to U.S. entities that manufactured certain wool articles made with certain imported wool products during calendar years 2000, 2001 and 2002; received a 2005 payment under section 505 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000; and as of January 1st of the payment year, continues to be a manufacturer in the U.S. as provided for in Section 505(a) of the Trade and Development Act of 2000. FAS will administer the Wool Duty Refund payment for 2016-2019 exactly the same as it was administered by CBP.

Executive Order 12630

This Executive Order requires careful evaluation of governmental actions that interfere with constitutionally protected property rights. This rule does not interfere with any property rights and, therefore, does not need to be evaluated on the basis of the criteria outlined in Executive Order 12630.

Executive Order 12866

This final rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866 and Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). It has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed by OMB for this purpose. A cost-benefit assessment of this rule was not completed.

Executive Order 12372

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988. This rule would not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. This rule would not be retroactive.

Executive Order 13132

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

This final rule has been reviewed for compliance with E.O. 13175. The policies contained in this final rule do not have tribal implications that preempt tribal law.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this final rule because FAS is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this final rule.

Civil Rights Impact Statement

No major civil rights impact is likely to result from the announcement of this final rule. It will not have a negative civil rights impact on very-low income, low income, moderate income, and minority populations.

Environmental Assessment

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FAS regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). FAS has determined that NEPA does not apply to this final rule and that no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E-Government Act Compliance

FAS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information, services, and for other purposes. The forms, regulations, and other information collection activities required to be utilized by a person subject to this final rule are available at: http://www.fas.usda.gov.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1471

Agricultural commodities, imports.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1471 is amended as follows:

PART 1471—PIMA AGRICULTURE COTTON TRUST FUND (AGRICULTURE PIMA TRUST) AND AGRICULTURE WOOL APPAREL MANUFACTURERS TRUST FUND (AGRICULTURE WOOL TRUST) 1. The authority citation for part 1471 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sections 501-506, Pub. L. 106-200, (114 Stat. 299-304); Section 4002, Pub. L. 108-429 (7 U.S.C. 7101 note); Section 1633, Pub. L. 109-280 (120 Stat. 1166); Section 325, Pub. L. 110-343 (122 Stat. 3875); Sections 12314 and 12315, Pub. L. 113-79 (7 U.S.C. 2101 note and 7101 note).

Subpart A—Agriculture Pima Trust 2. Amend § 1471.1 to revise paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1471.1 Provisions common to this subpart.

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) A W-9 providing the Federal tax identification number of the person (if the information required by Form W-9 has changed since the previous application).

(4) Standard Form 1199A. Every person claiming a payment must provide Standard Form 1199A, a direct deposit sign-up form, to facilitate any transfer of funds (if the information required by Form 1199A has changed since the previous application).

§ 1471.2 [Amended]
3. Amend § 1471.2(c)(1) and (2) by removing “(excluding duty, shipping, and insurance” and adding in its place “(excluding duty, shipping, and insurance)”. 4. Revise § 1471.5 to read as follows:
§ 1471.5 Affidavit of pima cotton trade associations.

In addition to applicable information requirements in § 1471.1, trade associations filing a claim for a payment must electronically provide a statement which states that during the calendar year immediately preceding the payment they were, as determined by the Secretary, a domestic nationally recognized association established and operating for the promotion of pima cotton for domestic use in textile and apparel goods.

Subpart B—Agriculture Wool Trust 5. Amend § 1471.10 to revise paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1471.10 Provisions common to this subpart.

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) A W-9 providing the Federal tax identification number of the person (if the information required by Form W-9 has changed since the previous application).

(4) Every person claiming a payment must provide Standard Form 1199A, a direct deposit sign-up form, to facilitate any transfer of funds (if the information required by Form 1199A has changed since the previous application).

6. Amend § 1471.11 to revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 1471.11 Payments to manufacturers of certain worsted wool fabrics.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Payment amounts. A total of $2,666,000 will be allocated annually among eligible persons covered by this paragraph on the basis of the percentage of each eligible person's total production (actual production, not estimates) of qualifying worsted wool fabric described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for each of the calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in relation to the total production of such fabric by all eligible persons who qualify for payments under this paragraph for each of the calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001.

(2) * * *

(ii) Payment amounts. A total of $2,666,000 will be allocated annually among eligible persons covered by this paragraph on the basis of the percentage of each eligible person's total production (actual production, not estimates) of qualifying worsted wool fabric described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section for each of the calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in relation to the total production of such fabric by all eligible persons who qualify for payments under this paragraph for each of the calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001.

7. Add § 1471.12 to read as follows:
§ 1471.12 Refund of duties paid on imports of certain wool products.

(a) Eligible wool. Eligible wool under the Duty Refund program means imported wool yarn of the kind described in section 505 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 Public Law 106-200 (May 18, 2000).

(b) Payments—(1) Eligibility. Persons eligible for a Duty Refund payment are manufacturers who, in the year immediately preceding the payment, were actively engaged in manufacturing wool (as determined by FAS), and in calendar years 2000, 2001, and 2002—

(i) Imported eligible wool directly or indirectly; and

(ii) Used the imported wool to make men's or boy's suits; or

(iii) Further manufactured the eligible imported wool.

(2) Payment amount. Persons eligible for a Duty Refund payment shall be paid the same amounts that were made to the persons by CBP through FY 2015.

8. Amend § 1471.13 to revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (d)(3)(i)(A), and (d)(3)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
§ 1471.13 Monetization of the wool tariff rate quota.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) In general. The term “eligible person” means a manufacturer (or a successor-in-interest to the manufacturer) in the U.S. or in a Foreign-Trade Zone authorized under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) during the calendar year immediately preceding the payment that:

(A) Imported qualifying worsted wool fabric; and

(B) Used the imported qualifying worsted wool fabric directly or had another person use the qualifying worsted wool fabric providing the eligible person owned the qualifying worsted wool fabric at the time it was used:

(1) In the case of wool of the kind described in subheadings 9902.51.11 or 9902.51.15 of the 2014 HTS, to produce worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers for men and boys; or

(2) In the case of wool fabric of the kind described in subheading 9902.51.16 of the 2014 HTS, used such wool fabric in manufacturing.

(d) * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) In general. When reporting the annual dollar value and quantity of imported qualifying worsted wool fabric, an eligible person may either have cut and sewn the wool on its own behalf or had another person cut and sew the wool on behalf of the eligible person, provided the eligible person owned the wool at the time it was cut and sewn.

(ii) * * *

(A) In general. When reporting the annual dollar value and quantity of imported qualifying worsted wool fabric, an eligible person may either have manufactured the wool on its own behalf or had another person manufacture the wool on behalf of the eligible person, provided the eligible person owned the wool at the time of manufacture.

9. Amend § 1471.14 to revise paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1471.14 Wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top duty compensation payment.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) In general. The term “eligible person” means a manufacturer (or a successor-in-interest to the manufacturer) in the U.S. or in a Foreign-Trade Zone authorized under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934 (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) during the calendar year immediately preceding the payment that

(A) Imported qualifying wool; and

(B) Manufactured the qualifying wool directly or had another person manufacture the qualifying wool providing the eligible person owned the qualifying wool at the time it was manufactured.

Dated: November 2, 2016. Philip C. Karsting, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, and Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2016-27661 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD; Amendment 39-18713; AD 2016-23-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect found in certain carburetor floats where an in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing could occur when the affected cylinder had reduced or blocked fuel supply. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective December 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet: www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2016-9000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 62037). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

Due to a quality escape in the manufacturing process of certain floats, Part Number (P/N) 861185, a partial separation of the float outer skin may occur during engine operation. Separated particles could lead to a restriction of the jets in the carburetor, possibly reducing or blocking the fuel supply to the affected cylinder.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-flight engine shutdown and forced landing, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.

To address this potential unsafe condition, BRP-Powertrain published Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-912-069/ASB-914-051 (single document, hereafter referred to as `the ASB' in this AD), providing instructions for identification and replacement of the affected parts.

For the reasons stated above, this AD required identification and replacement of the affected floats with serviceable parts.

This AD is republished to correct one typographical error in Table 2 of Appendix 2, and to include reference to revision 1 of the ASB in the Referenced Publications.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-9000-0002.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes procedures for identifying and replacing defective carburetor floats. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 65 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $100 per product.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $17,550, or $270 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2016-23-06 Various Aircraft: Amendment 39-18713; Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all serial numbers (S/N) of the airplanes listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category, that incorporate one of the following:

(1) A BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine having a serial number with a carburetor part number (P/N) and S/N listed in table 2 of paragraph (c) of this AD, installed as noted, in cylinder head position 1 through 4; or

(2) an engine that, after May 8, 2016, has had an affected float, P/N 861185, installed in service as part of the airframe. Affected floats were initially delivered between May 9, 2016, and July 17, 2016, and do not have three dots stamped on the surface, as shown in paragraph 3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016. A certification document (e.g., Form 1), delivery document or record of previous installation of the float are acceptable to determine an initial delivery on or before May 8, 2016.

Table 1 of Paragraph (c)—Affected Airplanes Type certificate holder Aircraft model Engine model Aeromot-Indústria; Mecânico-Metalúrgica Ltda AMT-200 912 A2 Diamond Aircraft Industries HK 36 R “SUPER DIMONA” 912 A DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES GmbH HK 36 TS and HK 36 TC 912 A3 Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc. DA20-A1 912 A3 HOAC-Austria DV 20 KATANA 912 A3 Iniziative Industriali Italiane S.p.A. Sky Arrow 650 TC 912 A2 SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH SF 25C 912 A2, 912 A3 Table 2 of Paragraph (c)—Affected Carburetors Engine Cylinder position Carburetor P/N and S/N 912A1, 912A2, 912A3, 912A4 1 or 3 P/N 892500—S/Ns 161138 through 161143, 161483 through 161490, 161493 through 161507, 161516 through 161518, and 161526. 2 or 4 P/N 892505—S/Ns 162193, 162194, 162196 through 162199, and 162205. (d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine—Fuel and Control.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing defect found in certain carburetor floats. We are issuing this AD to require actions to prevent the fuel supply to the affected cylinder from becoming reduced or blocked, which could cause an in-flight engine shutdown and result in a forced landing and damage to the airplane or injury to the occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service after December 23, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 30 days after December 23, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace all affected floats with a serviceable float following paragraph (3) Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.

(2) As of December 23, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a float, P/N 861185, that does not have three dots stamped on the surface, as shown in paragraph (3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4165; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0144, correction dated July 25, 2016, and BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069/ASB-914-051 (co-published as one document), dated July 14, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2016-9000-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), Revision 1, dated July 22, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP service information identified in this AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet: www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com.

(4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 7, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-27444 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160106014-6728-04] RIN 0694-AG82 Temporary General License: Extension of Validity AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License. The March 24 final rule created a temporary general license that restored, for a specified time period, the licensing requirements and policies under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) as of March 7, 2016, to two entities (ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun) that were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until February 27, 2017. In order to implement this decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the expiration date of November 28, 2016, and to substitute the date of February 27, 2017. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 18, 2016 through February 27, 2017. The expiration date of the final rule published on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633) is extended until February 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a temporary general license that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to that which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016.

On June 28, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 41799), which extended the validity of the temporary general license until August 30, 2016. On August 19, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 55372), which extended, for a second time, the validity of the Temporary General License until November 28, 2016. Details regarding the scope of the listing are at 81 FR 12004 (Mar. 8, 2016), (“Additions to the Entity List”). Details regarding the Temporary General License can be found in the March 24 final rule and in Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—Temporary General License.

BIS issued the March 24 final rule, and the June 28 and August 19 extension of validity final rules, in connection with a request to remove or modify the listings. The March 24 final rule, and the June 28 and August 19 final rules, specified that the temporary general license was renewable if the U.S. Government determined, in its sole discretion, that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun were performing their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and otherwise cooperating with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing.

At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until February 27, 2017. In order to implement this U.S. Government decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the date of November 28, 2016, and substitute the date of February 27, 2017. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the national security and foreign policy objectives of this rule would be harmed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subject in 15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016); Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343 (September 19, 2016).

Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—[Amended] 2. In Supplement No. 7 to part 744, remove “November 28, 2016” and add in its place “February 27, 2017”. Dated: November 14, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-27772 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 455 RIN 3084-AB05 Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) amends the Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule (“Rule” or “Used Car Rule”). The Final Rule adopts the following proposals: adding a Buyers Guide statement recommending that consumers obtain a vehicle history report (“VHR”), and directing them to an FTC website for more information about VHRs and safety recalls; revising the Buyers Guide statement describing the meaning of an “As Is” sale in which a dealer offers a vehicle for sale without a warranty; adding boxes to the front of the Buyers Guide where dealers can indicate additional warranty and service contract coverage; adding a Spanish statement to the English Buyers Guide advising consumers to ask for a copy of the Buyers Guide in Spanish if the dealer is conducting the sale in Spanish (and providing a Spanish translation of the optional consumer acknowledgment of receipt of the Buyers Guide); and adding air bags and catalytic converters to the list of major defects on the back of the Buyers Guide.

DATES:

This Rule is effective on January 27, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of this document are available on the Commission's website, www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John C. Hallerud, (312) 960-5634, Attorney, Midwest Region, Federal Trade Commission, 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825, Chicago, IL 60603.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Used Car Rule requires dealers to display on used cars offered for sale a window sticker called a “Buyers Guide” containing warranty and other information. The Commission promulgated the Used Car Rule in 1984, and the Rule became effective in 1985.1 One of the principal goals of the Used Car Rule is to prevent oral misrepresentations and unfair omissions of material facts by used car dealers concerning warranty coverage. To accomplish that goal, the Rule provides a uniform method for disclosing warranty information on the “Buyers Guide.” The Rule requires used car dealers to disclose on the Buyers Guide whether they are offering a used car for sale with a dealer's warranty and, if so, the basic terms, including the duration of coverage, the percentage of total repair costs to be paid by the dealer, and the exact systems covered by the warranty. The Rule additionally provides that the Buyers Guide disclosures are to be incorporated by reference into the sales contract, and are to govern in the event of an inconsistency between the Buyers Guide and the sales contract. The Rule requires Spanish language versions of the Buyers Guide when dealers conduct sales in Spanish. The Rule also requires other disclosures that must be printed directly on the Buyers Guide, including: a suggestion that consumers ask the dealer if a pre-purchase inspection is permitted; a warning against reliance on spoken promises that are not confirmed in writing; and a list of fourteen major systems of a used motor vehicle and the major defects that may occur in these systems (“List of Systems”).

1 49 FR 45692 (Nov. 19, 1984).

In July 2008, the Commission commenced its periodic regulatory review of the Rule (“Regulatory Review”) to examine its efficacy, costs, and benefits, and to determine whether to retain, to modify, or to rescind the Rule.2 The Commission also asked for public comments on the Spanish translation of the Buyers Guide, the List of Systems and defects on the back of the Buyers Guide, and whether to revise the Buyers Guide by adding boxes where dealers could disclose non-dealer warranties offered by third parties.3 The Commission received twenty-five comments from twenty-one commenters, including an automobile auction firm, an automotive repair firm, an online seller of used cars, automobile dealers, individual consumers, a consumer protection attorney, a group of consumer advocacy organizations, national automobile dealers' associations, state automobile dealers' associations, suppliers of dealer forms, county consumer protection agencies, the National Association of Attorneys General, the International Association of Lemon Law Administrators, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.4 Among other things, commenters recommended that the Commission require dealers to provide consumers with VHRs.5

2 73 FR 42285 (July 21, 2008).

3 73 FR 42285.

4https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-259; https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-294.

5https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-259; https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-294.

In December 2012, the FTC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) with proposed changes to the Rule.6 In the NPRM, the Commission proposed adding a statement to the Buyers Guide advising consumers about the availability of VHRs and directing consumers to an FTC website for more information about those reports; changing the statement on the Buyers Guide that describes the meaning of “As Is” when a dealer offers to sell a used vehicle without a warranty; and adding a statement, in Spanish, to the English Buyers Guide advising Spanish-speaking consumers to ask for a Spanish Buyers Guide if they could not read the English version. The NPRM also requested comments on revising the Buyers Guide to include non-dealer warranty boxes and a revised List of Systems that contained airbags and catalytic converters. In response to the NPRM, the Commission received nearly 150 comments from members of the public, including automobile dealers, consumer attorneys, consumer advocacy organizations, automobile dealer associations, providers of VHRs, legal aid agencies, consumer protection agencies, and state attorneys general.7

6 77 FR 74746 (Dec. 17, 2012).

7 Public comments on the NPRM are available at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-460.

After reviewing the comments, the Commission published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (“SNPRM”).8 In the SNPRM, the Commission proposed additional modifications to address concerns raised by commenters and sought comments on alternative proposals and issues that commenters identified in response to the NPRM. The Commission proposed amending the Rule to require that dealers who had obtained a VHR on an individual vehicle indicate on the Buyers Guide that they had obtained such a report and would provide a copy to consumers who requested one. The proposal retained, with modifications, the statement proposed in the NPRM to encourage consumers to obtain VHRs, to search for safety recalls, and to visit a proposed FTC website for more information. The proposed amended Rule would not have required dealers to obtain VHRs and would not have mandated a specific type of VHR or designated a specific provider of the reports.

8 79 FR 70804 (Nov. 28, 2014). Public comments on the SNPRM are available at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-583. Comments cited in this notice are identified by the name of the commenter (organization or individual) followed by the year of the comment. The designation (2015) identifies comments made in reference to the SNPRM and (2013) identifies comments made in reference to the NPRM (e.g., Center for Auto Safety (“CAS”) (2015) is the CAS comment on the SNPRM).

The Commission also proposed modifying the Buyers Guide statement that describes the meaning of an “As Is” sale in light of comments concerning a revision of the statement proposed in the NPRM. The “As Is” statement is meant to clarify that a dealer is offering the vehicle for sale without a warranty, i.e., without any undertaking or promise by the dealer to be responsible for post-sale repairs to the vehicle. The Commission also sought comments on providing boxes on the front of the Buyers Guide where dealers could disclose manufacturer and other non-dealer warranties, a Spanish statement on the English Buyers Guide advising Spanish-speaking consumers to ask for a Spanish Buyers Guide, and a revision to the descriptive language on the “Implied Warranties Only” Buyers Guide.

After reviewing the entire record, the Commission declines to adopt the approach proposed in the SNPRM, which would have required dealers that had obtained a VHR to check a new Buyers Guide box indicating that they had obtained a VHR and would provide a copy upon request. Instead, similar to what was proposed in the NPRM, the Commission has decided to add a statement to the Buyers Guide encouraging consumers to seek vehicle history information and directing consumers to an FTC website for more information. The Commission is aware that the marketplace for vehicle history information is changing rapidly and will continue to monitor developments in this area.

The Commission also has decided to revise the “As Is” statement proposed in the SNPRM. The revised statement in the Final Rule is:

AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY THE DEALER DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY WARRANTY FOR ANY REPAIRS AFTER SALE.

(See Figure 1). The Commission is also adopting the revised “Implied Warranties Only” disclosure proposed in the NPRM for use in jurisdictions that prohibit “As Is” used vehicle sales.9 (Figure 2).

9See 16 CFR 455.2(b)(ii), 77 FR at 74768, 74770 (Figure 2). The Commission did not receive comments on the proposed revision to the “Implied Warranties Only” disclosure.

The Commission has decided to modify the Buyers Guide in other ways proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM. The modified Buyers Guide in the Final Rule includes boxes on the front of the Buyers Guide where dealers can disclose manufacturer and other non-dealer warranties. The Commission is also reformatting the Service Contract box on the front of the Buyers Guide to make it flush with the non-dealer warranty boxes.

The Commission is adding a statement in Spanish to the front of the English Buyers Guide. The statement alerts Spanish-speaking consumers who cannot read the English Buyers Guide to ask for a Spanish Buyers Guide, if the dealer conducts the sale in Spanish. The additional Spanish statement is not intended to change the Rule's existing requirement that dealers provide a Spanish Buyers Guide if the dealer conducts a sale in Spanish.

II. Basis for Final Rule and Analysis of Public Comments

The Commission received forty-one comments during the SNPRM comment period from groups and individuals. The Commission has considered those comments as well as the comments submitted in response to the NPRM and the 2008 Regulatory Review in promulgating the Final Rule. Commenters on the three notices include consumer advocacy groups, industry trade associations, state attorneys general (“State AGs”),10 state regulatory agencies, attorneys who practice consumer law, and individual consumers.

10 Although the state attorneys general commented collectively, the group of state attorneys general who joined the comment on the NPRM differs from the group who commented on the SNPRM. State AG Group (2015) refers to the Mar. 17, 2015, SNPRM comment, and State AG Group (2013) refers to the Mar. 13, 2013, NPRM comment.

A. Vehicle History Information i. Commission Decision and Summary

The Commission has decided to modify the Buyers Guide by adding a statement that advises consumers to obtain VHRs and to visit an FTC website for more information. The Final Rule is similar to the approach proposed in the NPRM, in which the Commission proposed a Buyers Guide containing a statement that advised consumers to obtain VHRs and directed consumers to an FTC website for more information.11 In the SNPRM, the Commission proposed an alternative approach that would have required dealers who had obtained VHRs to check a box so indicating and to provide a copy of the report to consumers upon request. As described in greater detail below, commenters provided a range of views about both proposals and discussed various other approaches to disclosing vehicle history information.

11 77 FR at 74754-74756.

The informational approach to VHRs adopted here should help reduce deception and consumer injury that could result from undisclosed or deceptive disclosure of title brands or other pieces of problematic history. It reduces the potential that, under the SNPRM approach, consumers will rely too much on particular VHRs and dealers as a source of mechanical condition information, and instead directs consumers to a source of information on the FTC's website which is independent of the dealer. Moreover, the informational approach does not appreciably increase the burden on dealers beyond that already imposed by the Rule. By recommending that consumers obtain their own VHRs from whatever source best suits their needs, the Buyers Guide may make consumers more educated about VHRs and prompt more consumers to make appropriate use of them.

In reaching this decision, the Commission has considered the differences in VHRs and providers, the strengths and limitations of VHRs, and the evolving development of the collection and distribution of vehicle history information. The Commission notes that consumers currently can gain access to VHRs at no cost from many dealers, automobile market websites, buying services, and other sources and can purchase VHRs at a nominal cost from commercial vendors. This approach balances the benefits to consumers of vehicle history information and the burden of requiring dealers to procure and disclose vehicle history information.

ii. Sources of Vehicle History Information

Vehicle history information is available from a variety of public and private sources. These sources include state titling agencies (e.g., departments of motor vehicles (“DMVs”)), the National Motor Vehicle Title Identification System (“NMVTIS”), and commercial vehicle history providers, such as CARFAX and Experian's AutoCheck.

NMVTIS is a nationwide electronic database of vehicle history information created pursuant to the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992.12 NMVTIS was created to prevent the introduction or reintroduction of stolen motor vehicles into interstate commerce, to protect states and individual and commercial consumers from fraud, to reduce the use of stolen vehicles for illicit purposes including funding of criminal enterprises, and to provide consumers protection from unsafe vehicles.13 It is designed to enable nationwide access to title information submitted by state titling agencies, and information concerning junk or salvage vehicles that insurers, recyclers, and salvage yards are required by law to submit.14 It is intended to serve as a reliable source of title and brand history.15 NMVTIS is limited to providing data on five key indicators associated with preventing auto fraud and theft: Current title information, brand history, odometer reading, total loss history, and salvage history.16

12 49 U.S.C. 30501-30505. The United States Department of Justice published the final rule implementing NMVTIS in 2009. 28 CFR part 25, subpart B, 74 FR 5740 (Jan. 30, 2009). For a detailed discussion of NMVTIS information, and limitations of that information, see http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_consumers.html.

13See Understanding an NMVTIS Vehicle History Report, available at: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_understandingvhr.html.

14Id.

15 Brands are descriptive labels (applied by state motor vehicle titling agencies) regarding the status of a motor vehicle, such as “junk,” “salvage,” and “flood.” NMVTIS keeps a history of all brands that have been assigned to the vehicle by any state. See id. Individual state laws determine the application of title brands. The meaning of a brand and the brands that states assign differ by state.

16http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_understandingvhr.html.

Although NMVTIS is intended to be a reliable source of vehicle brand and title history, it does not contain detailed repair history and may not include significant damage history.17 For example, information on previous significant damage may not be included in NMVTIS if a vehicle was never determined to be a “total loss” by an insurer (or other appropriate entity) or branded by a DMV.18 On the other hand, an insurer may be required to report a vehicle as a “total loss” even if the state's titling agency does not brand it as “junk” or “salvage.” 19

17See Consumer Access Product Disclaimer available through: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/index.html.

18See Id.

19Id.

The NMVTIS Web site, www.vehiclehistory.gov, contains live links to the Web sites of approved commercial vendors that sell NMVTIS reports to the public.20 Consumers can purchase NMVTIS reports from these vendors for a few dollars. Approved vendors to both consumers and dealers are subject to quality control standards designed to ensure consistency with the intent and purpose of the Anti-Car Theft Act and its implementing regulations.

20 The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (“AAMVA”) operates NMVTIS under the oversight of the Department of Justice. AAMVA is responsible for approving vendors. Approved NMVTIS vendors must comply with quality control standards and are monitored by AAMVA.

Title and other vehicle history information are also available in commercial reports from vendors such as CARFAX and Experian's AutoCheck. CARFAX and AutoCheck enable consumers to purchase VHRs, and some dealers distribute them to consumers free of charge. CARFAX and AutoCheck obtain data from state titling agencies, insurers, repair facilities, automobile auctions, salvage facilities, and fleet rental firms. These reports can include information on prior ownership, usage, damage, repair history, etc. They may even disclose whether a vehicle has had regular oil changes. Both CARFAX and AutoCheck offer mobile apps that allow real-time access to their reports. In addition, both CARFAX and AutoCheck offer consumers an option to pay a flat fee to receive multiple reports.

Commercial VHRs may include vehicle condition data from sources other than NMVTIS.21 According to CARFAX, NMVTIS reports carry limited title, odometer, brand, and salvage/total loss information, whereas commercial reports may contain “a wealth of information about brands, total losses, prior wrecks, airbag deployments, open recalls, odometer readings, and even maintenance history.” 22 Experian noted that its AutoCheck VHRs can include information about fire and flood damage; accident damage, including the number and severity of any accidents; number of prior owners; auction inspection announcements; salvage, theft, or lemon; 23 fleet or rental use; frame damage; service and maintenance records; and manufacturer recalls.24

21 Consumer Access Product Disclaimer available through: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/index.html.

22 CARFAX (2013) at 1.

23 State “lemon” laws typically require a manufacturer to buy back a new vehicle if defects in the vehicle cannot be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts. See Lemon Law Basics available from the Int'l Ass'n of Lemon Law Administrators (“IALLA”) at http://ialla.net/pub_1.htm. Some states use the title brands lemon, lemon law buyback, or manufacturer buyback, or similar terms, to designate vehicles that have been reacquired by a manufacturer under a state lemon law.

24 Experian (2013) at 3.

iii. Summary of Procedural History and Vehicle History Proposals

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a statement on the Buyers Guide informing consumers about the availability of VHRs and advising consumers to obtain the reports. In response, many consumer advocacy groups, the State AG Group, and some NMVTIS vendors recommended that the Commission require dealers to obtain NMVTIS reports and/or adopt California Assembly Bill 1215 (“AB 1215”) (codified as Cal. Vehicle Code 11713.26), or some variation of it.25 AB 1215 requires dealers to obtain NMVTIS reports and to affix a warning label to a vehicle if the NMVTIS report shows a previous salvage or other state title brand or contains some other reported event, such as a total loss report from an insurance company. Broadly speaking, dealers' groups and the leading vendors of commercial VHRs opposed requiring dealers to obtain NMVTIS or commercial reports, or a regulation that would effectively choose one type of provider of VHRs over others.26

25E.g., Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety (“CARS”), et al. (2013) (fourteen consumer advocacy groups joined the comment); Legal Aid Justice Center (“LAJC”) (2013) (CARS joined the comment); Nat'l Salvage Vehicle Reporting Program (“NSVRP”) (2013); Nat'l Vehicle Service (“NVS”) (2013); CARCO (2013); ADD (2013) at 3-4; State AG Group (2015) (“we encourage the FTC to require dealers to obtain a NMVTIS report”).

26 CARFAX (2013) at 3 (FTC should not choose “exclusive technology and system by only providing information about a single public or private source of vehicle history”); Experian (2013) at 5-6 (NPRM “strikes a good balance in protecting used car consumers without being overly burdensome;” FTC should not promote one provider or source of vehicle history information over another; NMVTS statute defines what information is included in a NMVTIS report and therefore NMVTIS reports are not likely to be as “robust” as commercial reports); NADA (2013) at 3 (questioning whether Rule permits NPRM proposed VHR statement and commenting that proposed Web site should not endorse, link to, or otherwise imply legitimacy of any particular vehicle history company, report, or service); NIADA (2013) at 3 (commending Commission for not requiring dealers to provide vehicle history reports/damage history).

Rather than issuing a final rule based on the NPRM or AB 1215, the Commission published the SNPRM to seek comments on requiring dealers to disclose on the Buyers Guide if they had a VHR and to provide a copy of whatever report they had to requesting consumers. The SNPRM also invited public comments on several other approaches to vehicle history information proposed in the comments on the NPRM. The various approaches ranged from recommending that the Rule not address vehicle history information at all to approaches that generally fell somewhere between the NPRM's informational approach and the required disclosures of AB 1215.

iv. Analysis of Comments a. The Commission's Authority To Promulgate a Rule Addressing Vehicle History Information

The National Automobile Dealers Association (“NADA”) and the National Independent Automobile Dealers Association (“NIADA”) argue that a rule provision dealing with VHRs would exceed the Commission's authority.27 Specifically, they contend that the Used Car Rule was promulgated under Title I of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2309(b), which directs the Commission to initiate “a rulemaking proceeding dealing with warranties and warranty practices in connection with the sale of used motor vehicles,” and that vehicle history information is unrelated to warranty and warranty practices.28

27See NADA (2015) at 3-4; NIADA (2015) at 3. NADA is the national trade association of manufacturer-franchised new vehicle dealers. NIADA is the national trade association of independent non-franchised used vehicle dealers.

28 Public Law No. 93-637, formally known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvements Act, has two titles. Title I concerns consumer product warranties and includes a provision directing the FTC to “initiate within one year after the date of enactment of this Act a rulemaking proceeding dealing with warranties and warranty practices in connection with the sale of used motor vehicles.” 15 U.S.C. 2309(b). Title II amended various parts of the FTC Act and added what is currently section 18 of the FTC Act, which specifies the applicable procedures when the Commission issues a trade regulation rule.

Section 18 rulemakings are sometimes called Magnuson-Moss rulemakings, after the name of the bill that created section 18 of the FTC Act. But rulemakings under Title I of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act—that is, rulemakings related to warranties—are governed by the procedural requirements described in 15 U.S.C. 2309(a), not by the procedural requirements described in section 18 of the FTC Act. For warranty rulemakings under 15 U.S.C. 2309(a), the Commission is required to follow the notice-and-comment procedures in 5 U.S.C. 553 and additionally to provide “interested persons an opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, and arguments.” 15 U.S.C. 2309(a).

NADA, but not NIADA, further argues that the Commission must use more elaborate rulemaking procedures than those specified by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) 29 in order to reach certain independent dealers that sell used cars but (under NADA's interpretation) do not “service” them.30 Section 1029 of the Dodd-Frank Act (“DFA”) 31 authorizes the FTC to use the more informal APA rulemaking procedures to prescribe rules with respect to motor vehicle dealers that are “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.” 12 U.S.C. 5519(a), (d). According to NADA, certain entities that are subject to the Used Car Rule (although apparently none of NADA's members themselves) are not “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing” of motor vehicles because they only sell and do not service vehicles.32 NADA thus argues that, to reach these entities, any amendments affecting all dealers subject to the Used Car Rule must be promulgated using the heightened procedures required by section 18 of the FTC Act.33

29 5 U.S.C. 500-596.

30See NADA (2015) at 4.

31 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, sec. 1029 (codified at 12 U.S.C. 5519).

32See NADA (2015) Exh. A at 6 & n.6.

33 NADA (2015) Exh. A at 1, 8. NADA also argues that, “[a]t the very least, the FTC cannot go below” the hybrid rulemaking procedures found in 15 U.S.C. 2309(a)—i.e., the notice-and-comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553 plus an opportunity for oral presentations. NADA (2015) Exh. A at 6 n.7.

(1) The Commission Has Statutory Authority To Issue These Rule Amendments

NADA and NIADA argue that the Commission lacks statutory authority to issue these Rule amendments. That argument, however, founders on the mistaken premise that the Rule rests solely on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and not also on the FTC Act. As discussed in more detail below, the Rule has historically rested on both Title I of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Commission's authority under the FTC Act to issue rules addressing deceptive acts or practices. In the current proceeding, the Commission is issuing the rule amendments solely under the latter authority.

Ever since the Used Car Rule was promulgated, the Commission has made clear that the authority for the Rule “is derived from two sources”: Title I of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the FTC Act.34 The specific authority under the FTC Act is section 18, which authorizes the FTC to issue trade regulation rules that “define with specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive” within the meaning of section 5 of the FTC Act.

34See Trade Regulation Rule; Sale of Used Motor Vehicles, 49 FR 45692, 45703 (Nov. 19, 1984). For this same reason, the authority citation for part 455 has always cited both statutes. See id. at 45725; Regulatory Flexibility Act and Periodic Review of Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, 60 FR 62195, 62205 (Dec. 5, 1995).

The dual bases of statutory authority are also reflected in the Rule's existing provisions and the procedures that the Commission used to promulgate the Rule. Some of the current provisions in the Used Car Rule deal with unfair or deceptive acts or practices that are not directly related to warranties or warranty practices.35 Moreover, given that the Rule is in part a trade regulation rule, the Commission followed the more elaborate procedures in section 18 of the FTC Act when promulgating the Used Car Rule, not the simpler procedures that would have been available if the Rule had been issued solely under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

35See, e.g., 16 CFR 455.1(a)(1) (making it a deceptive act or practice for any used vehicle dealer to misrepresent the mechanical condition of a used vehicle).

NADA and NIADA are thus incorrect in arguing that the VHR amendments exceed the FTC's rulemaking authority. The rule amendments are based solely on the Commission's authority under the FTC Act to issue rules addressing deceptive acts or practices. In particular, the VHR amendments will help prevent deception in the market for used vehicles, as previously discussed in the NPRM and as further explained herein.36 The Commission has properly acted under sections 5 and 18 of the FTC Act in promulgating the VHR amendments.

36 77 FR at 74755-56; section II.A.iv.f., supra.

(2) The DFA Authorizes the Commission To Issue These Rule Amendments Pursuant to APA Procedures

Section 1029 of the DFA authorizes standard APA rulemaking procedures when the Commission uses its section 5 and section 18 rulemaking authority to address unfair or deceptive acts or practices by motor vehicle dealers. The DFA defines a “motor vehicle dealer” to mean someone who is (1) licensed by a State or territory to sell motor vehicles, and (2) takes title, owns, or has physical custody of them.37

37 DFA 1029(f)(2).

Section 1029(d) authorizes the FTC “to prescribe rules under sections 5 and 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act” with respect to motor vehicle dealers that are “predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both.” 38 The DFA authorizes the Commission to promulgate such rules “in accordance with” the APA procedures in 5 U.S.C. 553, “[n]otwithstanding section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” DFA 1029(d).

38 DFA 1029(a), (d).

NADA argues that some non-franchised used car dealers are outside the scope of DFA 1029(a) because they sell but do not “service” vehicles.39 This argument, however, relies on an unduly narrow interpretation of “servicing.” Although the DFA does not define “servicing,” the plain meaning of that term, along with the statutory language in DFA 1029(b)(3), suggests that the term should be read broadly to encompass activities such as “repair, refurbishment, [or] maintenance,” as well as other services.40

39See NADA (2015) Exh. A at 6 & n.6. It is unclear from NADA's comment whether NADA is separately arguing that certain entities subject to the Used Car Rule fall outside the DFA's definition of “motor vehicle dealer” which is limited to entities licensed by a State or territory to sell motor vehicles. 12 U.S.C. 5519(f)(2)(A). To the extent that NADA is making this assertion, NADA does not develop it and the Commission therefore declines to address it. In any event, many, if not all, used vehicle sellers subject to the Rule are also required to be licensed by the state or territory in which they do business.

40See DFA 1029(b)(3) (creating a category of persons who offer or provide “a consumer financial product or service not involving or related to the sale, financing, leasing, rental, repair, refurbishment, maintenance, or other servicing of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, or any related or ancillary product or service” (emphasis added)).

That definition captures activities undertaken by essentially all used car dealers. For example, whether or not they offer post-sale repair or maintenance services, used car dealers routinely prepare vehicles for sale by addressing any obvious mechanical problems and, as the Commission has previously noted, by undertaking the “general industry practice of appearance reconditioning.” 41 Such activities are a type of “servicing” within the plain meaning of that term and fall easily within the category of “refurbishment” activities mentioned in DFA 1029(b)(3). Because the Commission previously determined that used car dealers “routinely” recondition vehicles, id., and NADA has not offered any evidence that used car dealers have stopped engaging in this “general industry practice,” the Commission finds that dealers' practice of reconditioning vehicles is sufficient to satisfy DFA 1029(a)'s “and servicing” language.

41 49 FR at 45701. The record contains no evidence that the industry practice of reconditioning used vehicles is less widespread today than it was in 1984 when the Commission adopted the Rule.

The legislative history of DFA 1029 likewise confirms that Congress intended to preserve the FTC's existing rulemaking authority over auto dealers but streamline the procedures applicable to all such dealers, not only to an arbitrarily defined subset of them. When Congress enacted section 1029 of DFA, Congress sought to achieve two ends. First, Congress was aware of and intended to preserve the FTC's existing authority over auto dealers. For example, Representative Frank said, “We are not increasing the authority that the FTC has. There is no further grant of powers other than what the FTC already has.” 42 Senator Dodd similarly stated, “The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction on—on automobile dealerships so we're not breaking new ground. We're just, in fact, providing some tools for them to do this job.” 43

42 Transcript of House-Senate Conference Committee Markup of H.R. 4173, Financial Regulatory Overhaul Bill (June 24, 2010), http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-3690270 (last visited Dec. 4, 2015).

43 Transcript of House-Senate Conference Committee Markup of H.R. 4173, Financial Regulatory Overhaul Bill (June 22, 2010), http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-3693204 (last visited Dec. 4, 2015).

Second, Congress was aware that the FTC's existing section 18 rulemaking process is time consuming and wanted to speed up the FTC's rulemaking process with respect to auto dealers. As Representative Frank explained, the reason for section 1029 was to “expedite the ability of the FTC to act responding to” concerns about dealers' unfair or deceptive acts or practices.44 Representative Watt noted that requiring the FTC to use its existing section 18 procedures “that could take up to eight years before you can do something to respond to some predatory practice” might create “very bad consequences.” 45

44 Transcript of House-Senate Conference Committee Markup of H.R. 4173, Financial Regulatory Overhaul Bill (June 24, 2010), http://www.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-3690270 (last visited Dec. 4, 2015).

45Id.

Congress never suggested that it intended to apply the expedited rulemaking procedures to only a subset of the car dealers who are subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. Moreover, Congress had no clear basis for requiring different rulemaking procedures for different used-car dealers depending on what types of post-sale services those dealers happened to offer. In short, NADA's argument not only conflicts with the statutory text and legislative history, but would serve no rational policy objective.

Finally, as discussed, NADA's argument about the scope of the FTC's APA rule-making authority rests on an unduly narrow interpretation of “servicing” that includes only post-sale activities and excludes pre-sale activities such as refurbishing. But NADA's members are franchised dealers who are required to offer post-sale or post-lease servicing and warranty work as part of their franchise agreements. NADA's procedural argument could thus apply only to a subset of the non-franchised dealers separately represented in part by NIADA, which, notably, does not make the argument. The record contains no data to support NADA's assumption that many non-franchised dealers provide no post-sale “servicing,” which suggests that NADA's argument on this point may have limited applicability even if the term “servicing” were construed narrowly to include only post-sale activities.

b. Incorporating the Disclosure of Vehicle History Information Into the Rule

Some commenters raised arguments against including vehicle history information in the Buyers Guide. First, NADA and NIADA commented that the Rule and the Buyers Guide are limited to warranty disclosures and that the disclosure of vehicle history information is outside the scope of the Rule.46 As explained above in subsection (a), this argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Rule's purpose. From its inception, the Rule has addressed unfair or deceptive acts or practices as well as warranty practices.47 For this reason, the Buyers Guide already contains information that is primarily intended to help prevent consumer deception and that is not directly related to warranty disclosures, such as the spoken promises warning, the list of major defects and systems, and the advice to ask about a pre-purchase inspection.

46 NADA (2015) at 5; NIADA (2015) at 3; see also NADA (2015) Exhibit A, note 1 (questioning whether, in 1984, the Commission exceeded its Magnuson Moss authority by adopting the pre-purchase inspection notice).

47 For example, the Rule provides that misrepresenting the mechanical condition of a vehicle is a deceptive act or practice when a used vehicle dealer sells or offers to sell a used vehicle. 16 CFR 455.1(a)(1). See note 35 supra.

The Commission concludes that incorporating vehicle history information into the Rule fits within the general framework of the existing Rule and would benefit consumers by reducing deception in the used car market. Encouraging consumers to obtain VHRs independently will serve to direct consumers to an additional source of pre-sale information that is not controlled by the dealer and thereby lessen the consumer's reliance on dealers for information. The incorporation of vehicle history information should help reduce deception by unscrupulous dealers, because any misrepresentations will be contradicted by information that consumers have obtained independently.

Second, NADA and CARFAX commented that including vehicle history information on the Buyers Guide is not necessary because dealers already obtain and share commercial VHRs with consumers.48 Of course, not all dealers obtain and share VHR information, and the prevalence of the practice among non-franchised independent dealers is unclear.49 In addition, unscrupulous dealers might provide out-of-date reports or pick reports that contain the least amount of negative data. A statement on the Buyers Guide about the availability of VHRs will help ensure that consumers are not deceived by such practices.

48 NADA (2015) at 6-7 (NADA's comment is limited to the practices of franchised new vehicle dealers); CARFAX (2015) at 12.

49See NIADA (2015) at 8 (NIADA does not know how frequently independent dealers who access commercial VHRs provide them to consumers).

Finally, some commenters expressed doubt about the reliability of vehicle history information.50 NADA commented that, although general information related to vehicle history might be appropriate on a Commission website, a reference to specific commercial providers would not.51 NADA argued that consumers could gain a false sense of security from the reports, especially if they are required by the government and impliedly have the Commission's imprimatur on them.52 For those reasons, NADA commented that the FTC should include a disclaimer about the limitations of VHRs, if the reports are mentioned at all.53

50See, e.g., NADA (2015) at 5 (“it is important to understand that VHRs are unreliable and limited . . . only as good as the information available to the VHR providers.”).

51 NADA (2013) at 3 (FTC website, if created at all, “should be limited to educational materials and should not endorse, link to, or otherwise imply the legitimacy of any particular vehicle history company, report, or service.”).

52 NADA (2013) at 4.

53 NADA (2015) at 9; NADA (2013) at 4.

A disclaimer, however, is unnecessary because the reports are typically dated and contain disclaimers about the limits of the data in them.54 In addition, the website listed on the Buyers Guide includes information about the limits of data in VHRs.

54See, e.g., NMVTIS Consumer Access Product Disclaimer available at www.vehiclehistory.gov.

Some commenters approved of the informational approach proposed by the NPRM, i.e., adding a statement to the Buyers Guide advising consumers to obtain a VHR and directing consumers to an FTC website.55 Two vehicle history vendors commented that the FTC should avoid promoting a particular vendor or type of technology to deliver VHRs.56 In addition, the auto dealer associations recommended that the Rule not favor a particular source of vehicle history information.57 NIADA commented that the NPRM's proposed approach of directing consumers to a website and advising an independent inspection is “an acceptable compromise.” 58 Experian commented that the NPRM proposal “strikes a good balance in protecting used car consumers without being overly burdensome.” 59

55E.g., CARFAX (2013) at 1.

56 CARFAX (2013) at 2-3; Experian (2013) at 1.

57 NADA (2013) at 4; NIADA (2013) at 3.

58 NIADA (2013) at 3.

59 Experian (2013) at 5.

The Commission has decided to use an informational approach to vehicle history that reduces consumer reliance on dealers for information. The chosen approach does not endorse any type of or vendor of vehicle history information. Encouraging consumers to obtain VHRs independently will reduce deception in the marketplace by directing consumers to sources of information about the vehicles that they are considering buying that are not controlled by the selling dealer and thereby reduce the potential for consumers to rely upon misrepresentations from unscrupulous dealers.

c. Alternative Approaches to Incorporating Vehicle History Information Into the Rule

The commenters who recommended incorporating vehicle history information into the Rule proposed several different approaches. Some favored an informational approach; some recommended a Rule that, like AB 1215, would require dealers to obtain VHRs and to disclose information about them to consumers; some suggested various approaches in between. Below, the Commission discusses why it has declined to adopt three of the alternative approaches recommended by commenters.

First, in response to the NPRM and the SNPRM, the State AG Group, other regulators, and consumer advocacy groups stated that they prefer an approach like AB 1215 along with a requirement that dealers obtain and provide consumers with NMVTIS reports.60 For example, the National Consumer Law Center commented that dealers should be required to obtain a report that includes up-to-date vehicle history information from NMVTIS.61 Otherwise dealers might pick reports that contain the least amount of negative data, and VHR vendors might produce reports to cater to dealer demand for more favorable reports.62

60 State AG Group (2015) at 7; CAS (2015) at 1 (required disclosure of NMVTIS information); Nat'l Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”), et al. (comment joined by five consumer advocacy group including CARS) (2015) at 1-4 (FTC should require dealers to obtain VHRs that meet a minimum standard of containing NMVTIS information); CARS (2013) at 2 (FTC should require dealers to check NMVTIS and post AB 1215 warning label); Consumers Union (2015) at 1 (FTC should require dealers to check NMVTIS and other auto history databases as appropriate); Steinbach (consumer attorney) (2015) at 2 (FTC should incorporate NMVTIS data into Buyers Guide or require dealers to provide NMVTIS reports); Maier (consumer attorney) (2015) (FTC should require NMVTIS and safety recall information); Holcomb (VA DMV) (2015); NSVRP (2015) (FTC should adopt AB 1215); Stiger (Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs) (2015) (noting that AB 1215 has been beneficial, office approves of SNPRM proposal to require dealers to indicate if they have a VHR and to provide a copy upon request).

61 NCLC (2015) at 4.

62 NCLC (2015) at 3. See also NIADA (2015) at 3 (unscrupulous dealers may engage in VHR shopping); NSVRP (2015) at 3 (allowing any commercial report, instead of NMVTIS, would enable VHR shopping); Boyer (Nov. 20, 2014) (will companies evolve “to provide less objective and more `positively spun' reports for dealers?”).

The Commission, however, has decided that it will not adopt an amended Rule modeled on AB 1215 for the reasons already stated in the SNPRM.63 In addition, the Commission cannot give dealers the protection from liability for inaccuracies in NMVTIS reports provided by AB 1215.64 The Commission recognizes the limitations of VHR information as an indicator of a vehicle's current mechanical condition and does not wish to over-emphasize the value of VHR information over other potentially more probative sources of information, such as a pre-purchase mechanical inspection. In addition, requiring dealers to provide NMVTIS reports might discourage consumers from investigating other types of VHRs from other vendors.

63 79 FR at 70808.

64 AB 1215 grants dealers immunity from liability for inaccuracies, errors, and omissions in NMVTIS reports. Cal. Veh. Code 11713.26(f).

Second, as an alternative to the AB 1215 approach, the State AG Group proposed a vehicle history disclosure model similar to the SNPRM with the addition of a “branded title checkbox” that the dealer would be required to check to indicate that the vehicle's title had a brand.65 Like the SNPRM, the State AG Group's proposal would not require dealers to obtain VHRs or designate a type of or vendor of VHRs.66

65 State AG Group (2015) at 6; State AG Group (2013) at 5-6 (the “branded” title checkbox would indicate that the vehicle's title “will carry one or more of the following brands: Salvage, Prior Salvage, Rebuilt, Remanufactured, Flood, Lemon Law, or similar brand.”).

66 State AG Group (2015) at 6.

The “branded title check box” proposal from the State AG Group suffers from a number of practical problems if dealers are not also required to obtain either NMVTIS reports or other VHRs. Without a requirement that dealers obtain a VHR, the branded title check box could encourage dealers to forego VHRs entirely or to acquire only favorable ones. In addition, if an unchecked box, indicating that the dealer is unaware that the vehicle has a branded title, is incorporated into the contract as the dealer's affirmative representation that the vehicle in fact does not have a branded title, the dealer could face liability if a subsequent VHR shows a branded title. The lack of a checkmark could also suggest to consumers that the vehicle is in good condition when the lack of a checkmark is actually the far more limited representation that the dealer does not know whether the vehicle has a branded title.

Third, CAS commented that its preferred approach is “something of a hybrid” between AB 1215 and the State AG Group's approach.67 CAS would require dealers to obtain and to disclose NMVTIS reports, as required by AB 1215, and to check a box, similar to the branded title box suggested by the State AG Group, disclosing if the vehicle has a title brand.68 CAS envisions an improved disclosure box along with information about vehicle histories on the Buyers Guide and the FTC websites.69 Dealers who check the box would be required to provide a copy of any reports that they have obtained to requesting consumers.70 CAS would require dealers to keep any report that they view for as long as the dealer possesses the vehicle to which the report applies.71

67 CAS (2015) at 1.

68 CAS (2015) at 1.

69 CAS suggests an improved disclosure box. CAS (2015) at 1, note 2. Staff understands an improved disclosure box to mean one that provides more information on the Buyers Guide about what the NMVTIS report reveals, presumably similar to the AB 1215 warning label, rather than simply an indication that the NMVTIS report (or other VHR) indicates that the vehicle has a branded title.

70Id. at 2. CAS would consider permitting dealers to provide only the most recent report if the dealer has obtained multiple reports from the same provider.

71Id. at 2.

As noted, the Commission has decided against following AB 1215 and requiring dealers to obtain NMVTIS reports.72 The Commission is also not adopting the branded title check box proposed by the State AG Group, and favored by CAS, for the reasons previously discussed.

72See 79 FR at 70808.

The Commission is also not adopting the CAS approach because of the recordkeeping that it seems to necessarily entail. The CAS approach would impose new recordkeeping obligations by requiring dealers to keep copies of any reports that they view. The purpose of the CAS recordkeeping requirement is to prevent dealers from selecting favorable reports or from, for example, viewing reports online, but not printing or storing them, or obtaining information orally without ever viewing, or possessing, an actual report. But it is not clear how the Commission could construct detailed rules about when a dealer will be deemed to have viewed a report that would encompass all situations or how the Commission would enforce those rules if they could be devised.

d. Comments on the SNPRM Approach to Vehicle History Reports

As noted above, in the SNPRM, the Commission proposed requiring dealers who had obtained VHRs to check a box so indicating and to provide a copy of the report to consumers upon request. The SNPRM proposal also contained additional text recommending that consumers obtain a VHR, regardless of whether the box was checked, and advising that consumers visit an FTC website for information on how to obtain a VHR, how to search for safety recalls, and other topics. Many commenters criticized the SNPRM approach.

Consumer advocacy groups identified several problems with the SNPRM vehicle history approach. CAS, other consumer advocacy groups, and the State AG Group note that dealers could avoid revealing negative information in VHRs by, for example, picking and choosing among reports to select the most favorable report, discarding older (or newer) reports, selecting a report that showed the fewest problems, or selecting a vendor that generates reports showing minimal problems.73 As noted, CAS commented that it prefers the State AG Group's approach (requiring a title brand disclosure on the Buyers Guide and providing a copy of the most recent report from each vendor) if the Commission does not require dealers to provide NMVTIS reports.74 CAS notes that either approach could be supplemented with a requirement that dealers provide copies of the VHRs that the dealer possesses, but also tacitly acknowledges the difficulty in devising and implementing such a requirement.75

73Id. at 2; State AG Group (2015) at 7 (dealers should not be able to skirt requirement by discarding an observed VHR prior to sale); NCLC (2015) at 2 (dealer could have third-party auctioneer or broker pull report so that dealer does not possess it).

74Id. at 2.

75Id. at 3 (Requiring dealers to provide VHRs upon request “will require very well-drafted controls on dealer practices regarding vehicle history reports.”).

NADA further questioned the value of VHRs to consumers. NADA reiterated its earlier comments that VHRs are unreliable and of limited utility, which NADA states VHR vendors acknowledge in their own disclaimers about the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data in the reports.76 Given these limitations, NADA, and others, commented that the SNPRM's checkbox proposal could raise the prominence of VHR information in consumers' minds to an inappropriately high level.77

76 NADA (2015) at 5-6, note 9. See also, e.g., Kelly (NJ AG Div. Consumer Affairs) (2015) (unreliable information in CARFAX reports); Kramer (Oregon DMV) (2015) at 1 (NMVTIS is limited because not all states participate and NMVTIS information is not independent information such as service records).

77 NADA (2015) at 4; Carlson (2015) (adding VHR to Buyers Guide would give increased credibility to the reports); Copart (vehicle auctioneer) (2015) at 1 (FTC should not endorse VHRs but should continue to emphasize pre-purchase mechanical inspections, which will “provide more consumer protection than an often incomplete vehicle history report.”).

Dealers' groups identified several additional problems with the vehicle history approach proposed in the SNPRM. NADA questioned the need for a rule about VHRs in the first instance because most franchised dealers, and potentially other dealers, already provide VHRs to consumers and because of a lack of evidence that dealers fail to disclose known title brands.78 NADA commented that requiring dealers to indicate on the Buyers Guide whether they have a report and requiring dealers to provide it would make it less likely that dealers will continue to obtain and to distribute the reports because of the risk that the VHR information will be incorporated into the contract and that the dealer will be construed to have made a warranty about it.79 NIADA also raised concerns about dealer exposure to liability for third-party VHR information that the dealer does not control,80 which is potentially compounded by unreported repairs, poor reporting procedures, and different brands/classifications in each state.81

78 NADA (2015) at 6-7 and 12.

79 NADA (2015) at 10. NADA estimated that 95% of franchised dealers are customers of one or both of the two major VHR retailers and “routinely” share the reports with their customers.

80 NIADA (2015) at 4-6.

81 NIADA (2015) at 5.

Both NADA and NIADA commented that the SNPRM does not define a VHR.82 NIADA stated that, without a definition, dealers would have to guess when to check a box indicating that they have a report.83 NIADA also noted that, in addition to the well-known providers of VHRs such as NMVTIS and commercial vendors, other sources, such as banks, insurers, and service facilities potentially have information on used cars that could be construed to constitute VHRs.84 NADA proposed defining VHRs as third-party reports from state titling agencies, NMVTIS, or commercial vendors.85

82 NADA (2015) at 16; NIADA (2015) at 4.

83 NIADA (2015) at 4.

84 NIADA (2015) at 4.

85 NADA (2015) at 16.

The commenters disagreed about whether dealers or consumers should be required to pay for copies of the VHRs contemplated by the SNPRM. Dealers' groups commented that dealers should be permitted to pass along their costs to consumers.86 That cost could increase depending upon how often dealers must provide the reports because, dealers' groups and others commented, the SNPRM does not identify the point in a transaction when a dealer would become obligated to provide the reports.87 Although NADA indicates that franchised dealers now routinely share VHR information with consumers,88 NADA questioned whether licensing agreements would permit dealers to share those reports with all potential customers if doing so were to be required by the Rule.89

86 NADA (2015) at 13; NIADA (2015) at 7; Texas Automobile Dealers Ass'n (2015) (“TADA”) at 2; Crowl, All Star Autos, Inc. (automobile dealer) (00021) (dealers should not be required to provide an expensive $16.99 VHR to every customer).

87 NIADA (2015) at 7; TADA (2015) at 2 (although unlikely, a consumer could request a VHR on every vehicle on a dealer's lot).

88 NADA (2015) at 7.

89 NADA (2015) at 14.

Consumer advocacy groups, the State AG Group, and other commenters would place the costs of VHRs on dealers.90 NCLC commented that the dealer would need to purchase only one report per vehicle, and provide the reports to successive consumers, whereas those same consumers would each need to purchase a separate report for the same vehicle.91 Moreover, consumers who looked at several vehicles when shopping would need to purchase multiple reports.92 NCLC commented that asking consumers to obtain reports on their own is impractical because of the cost of the reports, especially multiple reports.93 NCLC and Consumers Union commented that some consumers might have Internet access only away from the dealership, at home or work, and would have to review the reports off-site and then return to the dealership to use the information.94

90 State AG Group (2015) at 8; NCLC (2015) at 4-5.

91 NCLC (2015) at 3-4. NCLC notes that [at the time of its comment] CARFAX offered unlimited reports for a period of 60 days at a cost of $54.99, and AutoCheck offered unlimited reports for 30 days for $44.99, sums that NCLC notes are beyond the reach of many consumers.

92 NCLC (2015) at 3.

93 NCLC (2015) at 4. However, consumers may be able to reduce their costs for multiple commercial reports in several ways. NADA notes that commercial VHR providers offer lower prices on a per report basis for multiple reports. NADA (2015) at 10, fn. 22. The AutoCheck and CARFAX websites corroborate NADA's statement, for example, consumers can purchase twenty-five AutoCheck reports for $49.99, http://www.autocheck.com/vehiclehistory/autocheck/en/AutoCheck-vehicle-history-reports/25-Reports-for-21-Days/p/10025, or five CARFAX reports for $49.99, ten dollars more than the price of a single report ($39.99), https://secure.carfax.com/creditCard.cfx?partner=CAR&partnerSiteLocation=4. In addition, commercial VHRs such as those offered by CARFAX are in many cases available for free through dealers' websites or websites listing used cars, such as AutoTrader.com and Cars.com. CARFAX (2015) at 2.

94 NCLC (2015) at 4; Consumers Union (2015) at 2. However, the Commission notes that the increased use of smart phones may enable consumers to obtain mobile access to VHRs when consumers are on a dealer's lot shopping for a used vehicle.

The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators supported disclosure of vehicle history data at the point of sale. Both it and the Virginia DMV commented that the FTC should recommend or reference only VHRs that integrate NMVTIS data because NMVTIS is a congressionally mandated database.95

95 AAMVA (2015) at 1; Holcomb (VA DMV) (2015). AAMVA is the association of state DMV administrators. AAMVA operates NMVTIS under the oversight of the United States Department of Justice. http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_faq.html#operates.

e. Incorporating Safety Recall Information

A number of commenters urged the Commission to address safety recalls in an amended Rule. Several recommended that the Commission prohibit the sale of vehicles with open recalls.96 Other commenters urged the Commission to require dealers to disclose if a vehicle is subject to an unrepaired (i.e., “open”) recall 97 or at least to check if a vehicle is subject to an open recall.98 Consumers Union recommended two boxes where dealers would indicate whether they had (or had not) repaired a vehicle in compliance with any applicable recall notices.99

96 NCLC (2015) at 5-7; CAS (2015) at 4 (contending that “[i]t is an unlawful trade practice under the FTC Act for a dealer to sell a vehicle with an open safety recall and the Commission should be using all its rulemaking and enforcement power to end that practice.”); Steinbach (consumer attorney) (2015) at 7; NSVRP (2015) at 6-9 (recommending that the Commission require dealers to check for open recalls; would prefer that Commission require dealers to repair open recalls before offering vehicles for sale, but believes Commission lacks the authority to enact such a requirement); Karwoski, SEA, Inc. (2015) (Commission should require dealers to disclose open recalls and require franchised dealers to repair open recalls on franchise brand vehicles that they sell).

97 State AG Group (2015) at 8 (proposing revised statement that places greater emphasis on recalls than the SNPRM statement); U.S. D.O.T. (2015) at 2-3 (recommending a Buyers Guide box for dealers to check if they have found safety recalls that have not been completed and directing consumers to check for open recalls at www.safercar.gov); Strassburger (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers) (2015) (recommending that the Buyers Guide direct consumers to safercar.gov to check for open safety recalls).

98 Spiller (NVS) (2015) at 2; Frias (North American Export Committee) (2015) at 2.

99 Consumers Union (2015) at 4-5.

Rather than adopt these proposals, the Commission has decided to address safety recalls by including a Buyers Guide statement directing consumers to check for open safety recalls by visiting safercar.gov. The Commission recognizes the significant public safety concerns associated with vehicle recalls, including in the used car marketplace, and is aware that potential legislation to address this public safety issue is under consideration and has NHTSA's support.100 We believe that legislative bodies and NHTSA, as the federal agency primarily tasked with ensuring motor vehicle safety, are best situated to consider and resolve the many issues implicated by such proposals—including, for example, the competitive effects they would have on independent dealerships that are not authorized to make repairs, the effect they could have on used vehicle trade-ins, the fact that remedies for some recalls may remain unavailable for significant periods of time, and other factors affecting the costs and benefits to consumers.

100See, e.g., NHTSA (2015) at 3 (describing the Department of Transportation's proposed reauthorization bill, the GROW AMERICA Act, which would give the Department the authority to require used car dealers to remedy safety recalls before resale.).

The Commission does note, however, that under the FTC Act's existing prohibition on deceptive acts and practices, an advertiser's claims may trigger the need for the advertiser to disclose information about open safety recalls. For example, the Commission approved for public comment proposed consent orders concerning advertising that, according to the Commission's complaints, touted the benefits of rigorous inspections of used vehicles, but failed to disclose adequately that some of the vehicles were subject to open safety recalls.101 Those proposed settlements would curb deceptive conduct by requiring the respondents to qualify their inspection claims, wherever they make them, with clear and conspicuous disclosures informing consumers that their used vehicles may be subject to unrepaired recalls for safety issues and explaining how to determine whether an individual vehicle is subject to an open recall. Further, the proposed orders would prohibit the respondents from making misrepresentations regarding recall status or safety, and require them to notify recent past consumers regarding recalls.

101 The Commission's press release announcing the proposed settlements is available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/01/gm-jim-koons-management-lithia-motors-inc-settle-ftc-actions.

f. Final Rule on Vehicle History Reports and Safety Recall Information

The Commission has considered the comments and entire record and has decided to adopt a final rule similar to what it initially proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, the Commission is revising the Buyers Guide to include a statement advising consumers to obtain a VHR and directing consumers to an FTC website for more information. The Buyers Guide VHR statement appears in Figures 1 and 2. The Spanish translation appears in Figures 4 and 5.

As described above, the views expressed by the commenters include those advocating that the Rule and the Buyers Guide should not address vehicle history information at all, those favoring an informational approach, and those favoring an approach that, like AB 1215, would require dealers to obtain VHRs (specifically a NMVTIS report in the case of AB1215) and to disclose information about them to consumers, and various approaches in between.

The Final Rule incorporates an informational approach to VHRs. Revising the Buyers Guide by directing consumers to obtain a vehicle history report should help reduce consumer injury and deception that could result from undisclosed or deceptive disclosure of title brands or other pieces of problematic history. The SNPRM approach could encourage consumers to rely too much on particular VHRs and dealers for mechanical condition information to the neglect of information available from sources independent of dealers. On the other hand, specifying the source of or type of VHR that consumers consult, such as AB 1215 does, could discourage consumers from choosing VHRs that best suit their needs. Finally, an informational approach to VHR disclosures should not increase the burden on dealers much beyond what the Rule already imposes.

The Commission agrees that the SNPRM approach to VHR disclosures suffers from practical problems raised by the commenters. Among these is whether the Commission must define a VHR, or adopt a standard, such as NMVTIS, for the minimum amount of information that a VHR must contain to comply with a VHR disclosure requirement. Another question is whether the Commission would have to define what it means to obtain a report and whether the Commission can prevent dealers from viewing a report online or discarding reports. Other problematic issues also would arise, such as whether consumers or dealers should bear the cost of the reports. If dealers bear the cost, should they be required to produce reports to all requesting consumers, or should they be required to provide reports only to bona fide potential customers rather than, for example, to all casual shoppers? The Commission notes that the SNPRM approach could create an incentive for dealers to shop for reports that minimize or do not include negative information and for vendors to produce such reports.

In addition, requiring dealers to produce any VHRs that the dealer possesses, as proposed by the SNPRM, could reduce the availability of VHRs that dealers currently provide because of dealer liability concerns. Such a requirement would likely necessitate an extensive, and potentially unwieldy, rule defining what constitutes a VHR and when a dealer will be deemed to have obtained a VHR that would likely be difficult to apply in all situations.

Moreover, the marketplace for VHRs is evolving rapidly. Consumers currently can purchase the reports from commercial vendors for between $2 and $40 per report and can also gain access to them at no cost from many dealers, automobile market websites, buying services, etc.102 The Commission is concerned that a mandatory approach to vehicle history information disclosure could have the unintended effect of impeding these developments and reducing consumer access to current and reliable vehicle history information.

102See note 93 infra. (consumers can purchase twenty-five AutoCheck reports for $49.99).

The Commission is also adding language to the Buyers Guide statement directing consumers to check for open safety recalls by visiting safercar.gov. In its comment on the SNPRM, NHTSA recommended treating safety recalls in a manner similar to the SNPRM's treatment of VHRs. NHTSA proposed a box that dealers would check if they had searched for information about open recalls, which dealers would then be obligated to provide to consumers upon request.103 Given that the Commission is adopting an informational approach to VHRs by directing consumers to obtain them independently, the Commission is also adopting a similar approach to safety recall information.104

103 NHTSA (2015) at 2.

104 As suggested by CAS, the Buyers Guide in the Final Rule uses the term “check for” safety recalls instead of “search” for recalls. CAS (2015), note 8.

B. “As Is” Statement i. Summary

The existing Buyers Guide contains a box that dealers who offer to sell a used car without a warranty are required to mark to indicate that the vehicle is offered “As Is,” i.e., without a warranty from the dealer. Adjacent to that box is a statement describing the meaning of the term “As Is.” In the NPRM, the Commission proposed modifying that statement to make it easier to read and to understand, but not to change the statement's meaning. In the SNPRM, the Commission proposed a revised formulation of the “As Is” statement and sought comments on other “As Is” statements.

After reviewing the comments that addressed the “As Is” statement, the Commission has decided to adopt the following “As Is” statement on the Buyers Guide which will appear next to a box that dealers would check in appropriate circumstances:

AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY THE DEALER DOES NOT PROVIDE A WARRANTY FOR ANY REPAIRS AFTER SALE.

The statement is intended to convey nothing more than that the dealer does not intend to provide post-sale repairs under a warranty. Dealer groups strenuously objected to the Commission's SNPRM proposal to include the statement, “But you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct.” 105 Consumer advocacy groups raised concerns that the SNPRM revision misstated dealers' potential obligations in some circumstances. The Commission has attempted to balance these concerns with a simple statement that concerns the warranty responsibilities that the dealer intends to disclaim. The fact that the dealer does not provide a warranty does not foreclose the possibility that a dealer could have post-sale repair obligations in some circumstances.

105 NADA (2015) at 18; NIADA (2015) at 7.

ii. Existing “As Is” Statement

The existing “As Is” statement on the Buyers Guide has been part of the Buyers Guide since the Rule's promulgation in 1984. The “As Is” statement was formulated to correct consumer misunderstanding of the term “As Is.” 106 The existing Buyers Guide states:

106 49 FR at 45722-45723.

AS IS—NO WARRANTY YOU WILL PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle. The Commission identified dealer oral misrepresentations regarding both mechanical condition and dealer after-sale repair responsibility in adopting the existing “As Is” disclosure.107 The Commission concluded that a clear “As Is” disclosure would reduce consumer reliance on oral promises to repair problems that arise after sale, which may be difficult to enforce.108

107 49 FR at 45705-45706.

108 49 FR at 45722. See also 49 FR 45697 (discussing parol evidence rule exclusion of evidence of oral statements that contradict written contract terms).

iii. NPRM “As Is” Statement

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed revising the Buyers Guide “As Is” statement to improve readability and to clarify the meaning of the term “As Is.” The Buyers Guide in the NPRM stated:

AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY THE DEALER WON'T PAY FOR ANY REPAIRS. The dealer is not responsible for any repairs, regardless of what anybody tells you. (“NPRM `As Is' Statement”).109

109 77 FR at 74769 (Figure 1).

iv. SNPRM “As Is” Statement

After reviewing the comments filed in response to the NPRM, the Commission, in the SNPRM, proposed retaining the “regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle” from the existing Rule and added “but you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct.” Thus, the Buyers Guide in the SNPRM contains the following “As Is” statement:

AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY

THE DEALER WILL NOT PAY FOR ANY REPAIRS. The dealer does not accept responsibility to make or to pay for any repairs to this vehicle after you buy it regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle. But you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct. (“SNRPRM `As Is' Statement”).

v. Comments and Analysis

NCLC commented that the phrase “regardless of any oral statements” is “troubling” because “[i]t is likely to convey to consumers that the dealer has the right not to stand behind its oral statements.” 110 According to NCLC, however, “under most states' laws, when the dealer has made statements about a vehicle's condition, it no longer has the ability to decline to accept responsibility for repairs necessary to bring the vehicle up to that condition.” 111 Attorneys representing consumers agreed that the language could understate a dealer's potential liability for oral misrepresentations.112

110 NCLC (2015) at 7.

111Id.

112 Flinn (2015) (Georgia attorney) (seller could be responsible for oral misrepresentations when vehicle is sold “As Is”; contracts induced by fraudulent misrepresentation are voidable); Gayle (2015) (Virginia consumer attorney). Cf. Moskos (2015) (South Carolina attorney) (suggests adding language to Buyers Guide that dealer is responsible for fraud regardless of what is on the Buyers Guide; judges sometimes accept dealer claim that it is not responsible for frame damage because possible frame damage is listed on back of Buyers Guide).

The State AG Group proposed eliminating the use of “As Is” entirely.113 The group observed that the focus of the statement should be on the “fact that the dealer is not providing a warranty, rather than the potentially confusing or misleading statements that the dealer is selling a vehicle `as is' or that it ‘will not pay for any repairs.' ” 114 Dealers' groups likewise emphasized that the disclosure should be about whether the dealer is providing a warranty.115

113 State AG Group (2015) at 4-5.

114 State AG Group (2015) at 5.

115 NADA (2015) at 18 (“should be one and only one goal in including this language [an explanatory phrase], and that is to explain that the dealer is not offering a warranty on the used vehicle.”).

The Commission agrees that the description of an “As Is” sale should focus on whether the dealer is offering a warranty rather than on an affirmative statement that the dealer will not pay for repairs. Likewise, the disclosure should not focus on an affirmative statement about a consumer's likely obligation in an “As Is” sale (“you will pay all costs for any repairs.”). Accordingly, the Commission has decided to delete the affirmative statements concerning the dealer's and consumer's respective obligations. Instead, the Commission has revised the Buyers Guide to add the explanatory statement, “the dealer does not provide a warranty for any repairs after sale.”

The Commission, however, has decided to retain the term “As Is.” As noted in the 1984 rulemaking, the Uniform Commercial Code specifically identifies using “As Is” as a method to disclaim implied warranties.116

116 49 FR 45697 note 59; Uniform Commercial Code 2-316(3)(a).

To balance the potential of the “regardless of oral statements” language to insulate dealers from liability and to dissuade consumers from pursuing remedies for oral misrepresentations that may be available in some circumstances, the Commission, in the SNPRM, proposed adding “but you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct.” 117 The proposed language was a variation of language suggested by the State AG Group 118 and, with several formulations, favored by various consumer advocacy organizations.119

117 79 FR at 70809.

118 The State AG Group proposed “But, you may have legal rights if the dealer concealed problems with the vehicle or its history.” State AG Group (2013) at 5.

119 Various commenters proposed additional revisions but also approved of the phrase “but you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct.” E.g., NCLC (2015) at 6-7; Steinbach (consumer attorney) (2015) at 7; State AG Group 015 at 4-5 (listing three acceptable alternatives: “however, you may have legal rights if the dealer concealed problems with the vehicle or its history”; “but you may have other legal rights if the dealer misrepresents the vehicle's condition or engages in other misconduct”; “but you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct”).

Dealers' organizations strongly objected to the proposed language. NIADA commented that “one is hard pressed not to read the third sentence as anything more than a provocation of consumers to search for dealer misconduct whether it exists or not.” 120 NADA commented that the proposed language is “gratuitous” and implies that dealers “are engaged in `misconduct' because they are offering a vehicle `as is' and without a warranty.” 121

120 NIADA (2015) at 7.

121 NADA (2015) at 18.

The Commission has decided against including the phrase “but you may have other legal rights and remedies for dealer misconduct,” as it had proposed in the SNPRM. The Commission agrees that the phrase may suggest that dealer misconduct exists or that consumers should look for it when none exists. Simplifying the description of an “As Is” sale to one in which the “dealer does not provide a warranty” should lessen the likelihood of consumer confusion and provide clearer guidance on whether a dealer affirmatively offers a warranty.

The Commission has decided to adopt a simplified “As Is” statement to address comments about whether the existing statement on the Buyers Guide clearly conveys that the dealer is not offering a warranty. The Commission has also considered the comments critical of various formulations of the phrase “regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle” and has decided to delete the phrase. The Commission notes that the Buyers Guide will continue to warn consumers that oral promises are difficult to enforce and to advise that consumers ask the dealer to put all promises in writing.

C. Non-Dealer Warranty Boxes

The proposed Buyers Guide in the SNPRM included boxes (“non-dealer warranty boxes”) that dealers could check to indicate whether an unexpired manufacturer warranty, a manufacturer used car warranty, or some other warranty applies, and whether a service contract is available. The version of the Buyers Guide proposed in the NPRM included similar boxes on the back of the Buyers Guide.122 NPRM commenters who addressed the non-dealer warranty boxes uniformly recommended moving the disclosures to the front of the Buyers Guide where they will be more accessible to consumers.123 SNPRM commenters also favored the boxes and placing them on the front, although some of these commenters proposed modifications to the boxes and making disclosure of unexpired manufacturers' warranties mandatory.

122 77 FR at 74771 (Figure 3).

123E.g., American Ass'n for Justice (2013) at 2; Bolliger (2013) (Florida attorney); CAS (2013) at 2; CARS (2013) at 8; Crabtree (2013); Domonoske (2013); Elias (2013) (Florida Dep't of Regulatory and Economic Resources—Consumer Protection); Kaufman (2013): Klarquist (2013); Kraft, Karen, Credit Counseling (2013); Richards, Casper & Casper (2013); Speer, James, Virginia Poverty Law Center (2013); Thomson (2013); Wells (2013); NACA (2013) at 2; Ohio Ass'n for Justice (2013) at 2; Wholesale Forms (2013) at 1, 2.

As suggested by the comments, the Commission has decided to make the non-dealer warranty boxes more prominent and accessible by moving them to the front of the Buyers Guide, as proposed in the SNPRM and shown in Figures 1 and 2. The Commission is also modifying the existing Rule's description of a service contract as proposed in the SNPRM and making the service contract box flush with the non-dealer warranty boxes.124

124 The State AG Group suggested making the service contract box flush and clearly separated from the non-dealer warranty boxes. State AG (2015) at 5.

The Commission has also decided to modify the statement that dealers may use on the Buyers Guide to disclose the applicability of an unexpired manufacturer's warranty.125 In its NPRM comment, CAS suggested that the unexpired manufacturer's warranty box should state that “[t]he manufacturer's original warranty has not expired on some components of the vehicle” because, according to CAS, that language is “more consistent with the different coverages that are in current warranties.” 126 The AG Group also supported CAS's proposed language.127 In its comments on the SNPRM, CAS proposed an alternative, the “manufacturer's warranty coverage period has not expired.” 128 As noted by CAS, the current language suggests that a manufacturer's unexpired warranty is bumper-to-bumper coverage whereas only some components may be covered.129

125 16 CFR 455.2(b)(v) permits dealers that wish to disclose the applicability of an unexpired manufacturer's warranty to state “The manufacturer's original warranty has not expired on the vehicle.”

The Final Rule permits dealers to use their existing stock of Buyers Guides for up to one year after the effective date of the Rule amendments. It includes a revised disclosure that dealers must use if they choose to disclose unexpired manufacturers' warranties, or other non-dealer warranties, using those Buyers Guides.

126 CAS (2013) at 3.

127 State AG Group (2015) at 3-6.

128 CAS (2015) at 3. CAS also commented that the disclosure of an unexpired manufacturer's warranty should be mandatory, and, if not made mandatory, the space on the front of the Buyers Guide should not be wasted on the disclosure.

129 CAS (2015) at 4.

The Commission has decided to adopt the language initially proposed by CAS to disclose unexpired manufacturer's warranties because the language more accurately describes that an unexpired manufacturer's warranty typically refers to warranty coverage over some components of a used vehicle rather than the bumper-to-bumper coverage associated with a new vehicle. Accordingly, the amended Final Rule will provide dealers the ability to disclose that a “manufacturer's original warranty has not expired on some components of the vehicle.”

For the reasons discussed in the NPRM, the Commission declines to make the disclosure of non-dealer warranties mandatory on the Buyers Guide.130 The Commission believes that a statement on the Buyers Guide encouraging consumers to request more information about non-dealer warranties will help ensure that consumers are not deceived if the dealer chooses to use the existence of a non-dealer warranty as a selling point. To ensure that consumers understand the scope of any non-dealer warranty, the disclosure advises consumers to “ask the dealer for a copy of the warranty document and an explanation of warranty coverage, exclusions, and repair obligations.” 131

130 77 FR at 74753. As the Commission noted when it adopted the Rule in 1984, dealers subject to the Used Car Rule should be aware that the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) and the Commission's rules interpreting the MMWA are fully applicable to any written warranty offered in connection with the sale of a used car. Used vehicle dealers should therefore consult the terms of the MMWA and the Commission's rules interpreting the MMWA for a clear explanation of the duties arising under the MMWA. See 49 FR at 45,709 (citing 15 U.S.C. 2302-2308; 16 CFR parts 700 (interpretations of the MMWA); 701 (disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions); 702 (presale availability of written warranty terms); and 703 (informal dispute settlement procedures)).

131See Figure 1.

D. Spanish Sales

The Commission has decided to add a revised statement, in Spanish, to the front of the English Buyers Guide advising Spanish-speaking consumers who cannot read the English Buyers Guide to ask for a copy of the Spanish Buyers Guide if the dealer conducts the sale in Spanish. A proposed Spanish statement was included in the Buyers Guide published with the NPRM and incorporated into the SNPRM Buyers Guide.132 The Rule prescribes a Spanish Buyers Guide and requires its use if a dealer conducts a sale in Spanish.133 Dealers' groups commented that the proposed statement (“if you are unable to read this document in English, ask your salesperson for a copy in Spanish”) potentially could have expanded dealers' obligation to use Spanish Guides.134 Recognizing this concern and not intending any change in the Rule's requirement regarding Spanish Buyers Guides, the Commission has changed the statement to advise consumers to ask for the Buyers Guide in Spanish if the dealer is conducting the sale in Spanish.

132See SNPRM Figures 1 and 2, 79 FR 70818-70819; NPRM Figures 1 and 2, 77 FR at 74769 and 74770.

133 16 CFR 455.5.

134 NADA (2015) at 19, 20.

The Rule permits dealers to add an optional signature line to the back of the Buyers Guide where consumers can acknowledge receipt of the Buyers Guide.135 As recommended by the Texas Automobile Dealers Association, the Commission has adopted a translation of the acknowledgment statement into the Final Rule.136

135 16 CFR 455.2(f).

136 Texas Automobile Dealers Association (00032) at 4. See revised 16 CFR 455.5.

E. Miscellaneous NPRM Buyers Guide Modifications Incorporated in the Final Rule

The Final Rule and Buyers Guide incorporate text and other modifications to the Buyers Guide that the Commission proposed in the NPRM. The Buyers Guide's statement advising consumers to ask the dealer about a mechanical inspection has been relocated above the proposed vehicle history information box to enhance its prominence.137 The Final Rule retains the use of the terms “dealer warranty” and “non-dealer warranty” proposed in the NPRM. Finally, the Buyers Guide incorporates the NPRM's proposed modifications to the description of “Implied Warranties Only” on the version of the Buyers Guide for use in jurisdictions that prohibit dealers from waiving implied warranties 138 and the description of a service contract on the front of the Buyers Guide.139

137 The following statement has been on the Buyers Guide since the Rule's promulgation in 1984: ASK THE DEALER IF YOUR MECHANIC CAN INSPECT THE VEHICLE ON OR OFF THE LOT. See Figures 1 and 2.

138See 16 CFR 455.2(b)(1)(ii); Figure 2.

139Id.

In the NPRM, the Commission proposed adding air bags and catalytic converters, as part of the exhaust system, to the list of some major defects that may occur in used vehicles.140 The Commission did not receive comments on the proposal. The revised Buyers Guide includes air bags and catalytic converters in the list of major defects.141

140 77 FR at 74760.

141See Figures 3 and 6 (Spanish).

F. Modification of Service-Contract Provisions

When the Commission promulgated the Rule in 1984, the Commission noted that it did not intend to regulate those service contracts that are “excluded from the Commission's jurisdiction by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.” 142 Consistent with that intent, the Commission has decided to adopt the revisions proposed in the SNPRM.143 Therefore, § 455.1(d)(7) and § 455.2(b)(3) will be amended so that they correspond more closely with the statutory language of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.144

142 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Sale of Used Motor Vehicles, 49 FR 45692, 45709 (Nov. 19, 1984).

143 79 FR at 70810.

144 15 U.S.C. 1012(b).

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) 145 requires that the Commission conduct an initial and a final analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the amendments on small entities. The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure the agency considers the impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities. The RFA 146 provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

145 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

146 5 U.S.C. 605.

The Commission believes that the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on small entities, although they will likely affect a substantial number of small entities. The Rule, and the amendments, apply primarily to independent used vehicle dealers and franchised new vehicle dealers, which typically also sell used vehicles, such as vehicles traded for new car purchases. Most dealers would be classified as small businesses, as explained infra.

The amendments revise the Buyers Guide that the Rule requires dealers to display on used vehicles by changing pre-printed disclosures that appear on the Buyers Guide and adding boxes that dealers can check if they choose to disclose additional information concerning non-dealer warranties. Although the amendments will require that dealers eventually substitute the revised Buyers Guides, the amendments permit dealers to use their existing stock of Buyers Guides for up to one year after the effective date of these Rule amendments before doing so. The Rule already permits dealers to make the disclosures in the check boxes, but the check boxes will make the disclosures easier for those dealers who choose to make them. Therefore, the Commission certifies that amending the Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

The Final Rule is similar to the rule proposed in the NPRM. In its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”), the Commission determined that the NPRM Proposed Rule was not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.147 The only additional burden that the Final Rule, like the Proposed Rule, places on dealers is the substitution of new Buyers Guides for the ones that dealers currently use, but dealers will be permitted to use their existing stock of Buyers Guides for up to one year after the effective date of these Rule amendments. The new Buyers Guide makes disclosing non-dealer warranties easier for those dealers who choose to disclose them, but does not require additional disclosures regarding non-dealer warranties.

147 77 FR 74765.

Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the amendments will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Commission nonetheless has determined that publishing a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) is appropriate to ensure that the impact of the amendments is fully addressed. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis:

A. Need for and Objectives of the Amendments

The purpose of the amendments is to provide material information about vehicle histories and used car warranties to help protect consumers from dealer misrepresentations and to aid consumers in making informed choices when purchasing a used vehicle. In particular, the amendments seek to promote consumer awareness of vehicle history information, to clarify the meaning of “as is” in the sale of used vehicles without warranties, to make disclosures concerning non-dealer warranties more prominent, to improve Spanish-speaking consumers' access to the Spanish Buyers Guide during sales conducted in Spanish, and to provide additional information about defects that may be found in used vehicles.

B. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments

None of the comments disputed the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the NPRM or in the SNPRM. In the SNPRM, the Commission proposed that dealers indicate on the Buyers Guide that they had obtained a VHR and, if so, provide a copy of the VHR to consumers upon request. Commenters questioned whether the cost of providing copies of VHRs to consumers should be borne by consumers or dealers. The Final Rule does not require dealers to provide copies of VHRs to consumers, but instead a pre-printed statement on the Buyers Guide recommends that consumers visit an FTC website to learn more about obtaining VHRs. Accordingly, the amendments will not require dealers to bear the cost of providing VHRs to consumers.

The Commission did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

C. Small Entities to Which the Amendments Will Apply

The Used Car Rule primarily applies to “dealers” defined as “any individual or business which sells or offers for sale a used vehicle after selling or offering for sale five (5) or more used vehicles in the previous twelve months.” 148 The Commission believes that many of these dealers are small businesses according to the applicable Small Business Administration (“SBA”) size standards. Under those standards, the SBA would classify as small businesses independent used car dealers having annual receipts of less than $25 million and franchised new car dealers, which also typically sell used cars, having fewer than 200 employees each.149

148 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3).

149Table of Small Bus. Size Standards Matched to North American Indus. Classification System Codes, 13 CFR 121.201 (available at: https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-stand), updated Feb. 26, 2016. Used car dealers are classified as NAICS 441120 and franchised new car dealers as NAICS 441110.

Most independent used vehicle dealers would be classified as small businesses. In 2012, the United States' 37,892 independent used vehicle dealers 150 had average total sales of $4,228,137.151 These used vehicle dealers' average annual revenue is well below the maximum $25 million in annual sales established by the SBA for classification as a small business. Therefore, these used vehicle dealers would be classified as small businesses.

150NIADA Used Car Industry Report 2013, at 16. The most recent figures published by NIADA are for 2012.

151Id. at 20. Used vehicle sales accounted for 38.29% ($1,618,954) of those sales.

The SBA would also classify many franchised new car dealers as small businesses. In 2015, the nation's 16,545 franchised new car dealers 152 had an average of sixty-seven employees,153 well below the 200-employee maximum established by the SBA for classification as a small business.154

152NADA Data 2015 at 3. (available at: https://www.nada.org/nadadata/.).

153Id. at 17.

154Table of Small Bus. Size Standards at 23.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and Professional Skills Needed To Comply

The Used Car Rule imposes disclosure obligations on used vehicle dealers, but does not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, the Rule requires dealers to complete and to display a Buyers Guide on each used car offered for sale. Neither the existing Rule nor the Final Rule requires dealers to disclose non-dealer warranties. Under the existing Rule, dealers who choose to disclose non-dealer warranties, in particular, unexpired manufacturer's warranties, may do so by adding a statement to the Buyers Guide that is prescribed by the Rule. The Final Rule permits dealers to disclose unexpired manufacturer's warranties and other third-party warranties, but does not require that dealers make those disclosures. For those dealers who choose to disclose non-dealer warranties, the Final Rule should make the disclosure easier because dealers can make the disclosures by checking a box on the Buyers Guide rather than adding a statement prescribed by the Rule.

In other Federal Register submissions, the Commission has concluded that professional skills needed to comply with the rule are possessed by clerical or administrative staff.155 The professional skills necessary to comply with the Rule as modified by the amendments are the same as those necessary to comply with the existing Rule.

155See, e.g., 79 FR 70814, note 101; Request for Extension of Clearance, 78 FR 59032, 59033 (Sept. 25, 2013).

E. Significant Alternatives to the Amendments

The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption or other significant alternatives because the amendments simply modify the pre-printed disclosures that dealers are already required to make in connection with offering used cars for sale.

The Commission believes that the Final Rule will help reduce potential deception by promoting consumer awareness of vehicle history information, consumer understanding of the meaning of “As Is” in used vehicle sales transactions in which a dealer disclaims warranties, and consumer awareness of warranties that may apply to a used vehicle. The revised Buyers Guide contains pre-printed statements that direct consumers to consumer-oriented websites for additional information, including live links to outside sources of information. The Rule also requires dealers to complete parts of the Buyers Guide by, among other things, listing the VIN and indicating the warranty coverage, if any, that applies to the vehicle. A downloadable, fillable version of the revised Buyers Guide is available on the Commission's Web site.

The Rule also provides that the Buyers Guide is incorporated into the sales contract. The Rule requires that dealers complete a Buyers Guide for each used vehicle offered for sale, display a physical Buyers Guide on the vehicle, and provide a copy of that Buyers Guide to consumers. Therefore, consumers are able to see the Buyers Guide disclosures upon even a casual inspection of a used vehicle that they are considering buying. Consumers likely expect to see a physical label on used cars because disclosure labels (“Monroney” stickers) are required to be affixed to new cars.156 In staff's enforcement experience, used vehicle dealers routinely place point of sale advertising statements (e.g., “low miles,” “one owner”) directly on vehicles to capture consumers' attention. Similarly, the Commission continues to believe that a Buyers Guide displayed on a used vehicle will most effectively capture a consumer's attention.

156See 15 U.S.C. 1232.

The Commission considered several different approaches to vehicle history information discussed in the comments. In the SNPRM, the Commission proposed requiring dealers who have VHRs to disclose that fact on the Buyers Guide and to provide copies of the reports to requesting consumers. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed placing a statement on the Buyers Guide that would advise consumers about the availability of vehicle history information and direct consumers to an FTC website for more information. The Commission also considered requiring dealers to obtain VHRs. such as NMVTIS reports, and requiring dealers to make disclosures similar to those required by California's AB 1215. Currently consumers can gain access to VHRs at no cost from many dealers, automobile marketplace websites, buying services, etc., and from commercial vendors at a nominal cost. Given the availability of various sources for and types of VHRs, the Commission has chosen not to require that dealers obtain reports or to designate specific types of reports or specific vendors. In doing so, the Commission sought to balance the burden placed on dealers with the goals of promoting consumer choice and access to vehicle history information.

The Commission considered comments on the Buyers Guide “As Is” statement and the various formulations of the statement proposed by the comments. The Commission chose the “As Is” statement in this Final Rule because the Commission believes that the statement clearly and accurately describes the meaning of “As Is.”

The Commission considered comments on the non-dealer warranty boxes proposed in the NPRM. In response to those comments, the Commission has moved those boxes to the front of the Buyers Guide.

Under these circumstances, the Commission does not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the intended purposes of the amendments.

IV. Regulatory Analysis

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, the Commission must issue a regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a rule only when it: (1) Estimates that the amendment will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities or upon consumers.

After careful consideration of the comments, and the record as a whole, the Commission has determined that there are no facts in the record, or other reasons to believe, that these amendments will have significant effects on the national economy, on the cost of goods or services, or on covered parties or consumers. No commenter provided a cost estimate of the amendments. Moreover, none indicated that the amendments would have an annual impact of more than $100,000,000, cause substantial change in the cost of goods or services, or otherwise have a significant effect upon covered entities or consumers.

In any event, to the extent, if any, these final rule amendments will have such effects, the Commission has explained above the need for, and the objectives of, the final amendments; the regulatory alternatives that the Commission considered; the projected benefits and adverse economic or other effects, if any, of the amendments; the reasons that the final amendments will attain their intended objectives in a manner consistent with applicable law; the reasons for the particular amendments that the agency has adopted; and the significant issues raised by public comments, including the Commission's assessment of and response to those comments on those issues.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The existing Rule contains no recordkeeping or reporting requirements, but it does contain disclosure requirements that constitute “information collection requirements” as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c) under the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) regulations that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). OMB has approved the Rule's existing information collection requirements through Jan. 31, 2017 (OMB Control No. 3084-0108).

As discussed above, the Commission is retaining the requirement that dealers must display a Buyers Guide on used cars offered for sale and is updating the text of the disclosures that dealers must provide in the Buyers Guide. The Commission is also amending the Buyers Guide to provide dealers with a method to disclose optional additional information about non-dealer warranties. The amendments about non-dealer warranties do not require dealers to disclose this additional information nor do they alter the Rule's existing disclosure requirements or impose recordkeeping requirements.

The Commission has made amended Buyers Guides available on its Web site for downloading by dealers free of charge. The Commission expects that current suppliers of Buyers Guides, such as commercial vendors and dealer trade associations, will supply dealers with amended Buyers Guides. Accordingly, individual dealer cost to obtain amended Buyers Guides should increase only marginally, if at all.

As explained in the NPRM, FTC staff has estimated that dealers will make the optional disclosures on 25% of used cars offered for sale. Dealers who choose to make the optional disclosures should obtain amended Buyers Guides and complete them by checking additional boxes not appearing on the current Buyers Guide. Staff has in the past estimated that completing Buyers Guides requires approximately 2 minutes per vehicle for vehicles sold without a warranty and 3 minutes per vehicle for vehicles sold with a warranty.157 Staff believes that checking the additional boxes should require dealers no more than an additional 30 seconds per vehicle.158 Thus, based on 27,966,551 used cars sold,159 making the optional disclosures presented by the amendments would increase estimated burden by 58,264 hours (25% × 27,966,551 vehicles sold × 1/120 hour per vehicle).

157See, e.g., 78 FR 59032, 59032 (Sept. 25, 2013) (Notice: “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension.”).

158 Previously, dealers who opted to disclose the applicability of manufacturers' warranties could do so by adding a statement to the Buyers Guide, 16 CFR 455.2(2)(b)(v), which likely would take longer than simply checking a box to make the same disclosure. The projected increment of 30 seconds is a combined reflection of time saved through the latter means and the incremental time accorded to checking off additional boxes tied to new disclosures under the Final Rule.

159NIADA's Used Car Industry Report 2016, at 31 (citing NADA data for the total number of used vehicles sold by franchised and independent dealers in 2015).

Staff also anticipates that dealers can use lower level clerical staff at a mean hourly wage of $15.33 per hour 160 to complete the Buyers Guides, so incremental labor costs associated with making the optional disclosures will total $893,187 per year [58,264 hours × $15.33 per hour].

160 The hourly rate is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate of the mean hourly wage for office clerks, general. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2015, 43-9061 Office Clerks, General, available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes439061.htm.

Estimating, as stated above, that dealers will make the optional disclosures on 25% of the 27,966,551 used cars offered for sale, and assuming further a cost of thirty cents per preprinted Buyers Guide, incremental purchase costs per year will total $2,097,491. Any other capital costs associated with the amendments are likely to be minimal. This analysis is consistent with the analysis provided in the NPRM, but has been updated with more recent data regarding the number of used vehicles sold and labor costs tied to making the optional disclosures for those sales. None of the comments disputed the PRA analysis in the NPRM.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 455

Motor vehicles, Trade practices.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission amends part 455 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 455—USED MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE REGULATION RULE 1. The authority citation for part 455 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 2309; 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

2. Amend § 455.1 by revising paragraph (d)(7) to read as follows:
§ 455.1 General duties of a used vehicle dealer; definitions.

(d) * * *

(7) Service contract means a contract in writing for any period of time or any specific mileage to refund, repair, replace, or maintain a used vehicle and provided at an extra charge beyond the price of the used vehicle, unless offering such contract is “the business of insurance” and such business is regulated by State law.

3. Amend § 455.2 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 455.2 Consumer sales—window form.

(a) General duty. Before you offer a used vehicle for sale to a consumer, you must prepare, fill in as applicable and display on that vehicle the applicable “Buyers Guide” illustrated by Figures 1-2 at the end of this part. Dealers may use remaining stocks of the version of the Buyers Guide in effect prior to the effective date of this Rule for up to one year after that effective date (i.e., until January 27, 2018). Dealers who opt to use their existing stock and choose to disclose the applicability of a non-dealer warranty, must add the following as applicable below the “Full/Limited Warranty” disclosure: “Manufacturer's Warranty still applies. The manufacturer's original warranty has not expired on the vehicle;” “Manufacturer's Used Vehicle Warranty Applies;” or “Other Used Vehicle Warranty Applies,” followed by the statement, “Ask the dealer for a copy of the warranty document and an explanation of warranty coverage, exclusions, and repair obligations.”

(2) The capitalization, punctuation and wording of all items, headings, and text on the form must be exactly as required by this Rule. The entire form must be printed in 100% black ink on a white stock no smaller than 11 inches high by 71/4 inches wide in the type styles, sizes and format indicated. When filling out the form, follow the directions in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section and § 455.4.

(b) Warranties—(1) No Implied Warranty—“As Is”/No Dealer Warranty. (i) If you offer the vehicle without any implied warranty, i.e., “as is,” mark the box appearing in Figure 1. If you offer the vehicle with implied warranties only, substitute the IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY disclosure specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, and mark the IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY box illustrated by Figure 2. If you first offer the vehicle “as is” or with implied warranties only but then sell it with a warranty, cross out the “As Is—No Dealer Warranty” or “Implied Warranties Only” disclosure, and fill in the warranty terms in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(ii) If your State law limits or prohibits “as is” sales of vehicles, that State law overrides this part and this rule does not give you the right to sell “as is.” In such States, the heading “As Is—No Dealer Warranty” and the paragraph immediately accompanying that phrase must be deleted from the form, and the following heading and paragraph must be substituted as illustrated in the Buyers Guide in Figure 2. If you sell vehicles in States that permit “as is” sales, but you choose to offer implied warranties only, you must also use the following disclosure instead of “As Is—No Dealer Warranty” as illustrated by the Buyers Guide in Figure 2. See § 455.5 for the Spanish version of this disclosure.

IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY

The dealer doesn't make any promises to fix things that need repair when you buy the vehicle or afterward. But implied warranties under your state's laws may give you some rights to have the dealer take care of serious problems that were not apparent when you bought the vehicle.

(2) Full/Limited Warranty. If you offer the vehicle with a warranty, briefly describe the warranty terms in the space provided. This description must include the following warranty information:

(i) Whether the warranty offered is “Full” or “Limited.” Mark the box next to the appropriate designation. A “Full” warranty is defined by the Federal Minimum Standards for Warranty set forth in section 104 of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304 (1975). The Magnuson-Moss Act does not apply to vehicles manufactured before July 4, 1975. Therefore, if you choose not to designate “Full” or “Limited” for such vehicles, cross out both designations, leaving only “Warranty.”

(ii) Which of the specific systems are covered (for example, “engine, transmission, differential”). You cannot use shorthand, such as “drive train” or “power train” for covered systems.

(iii) The duration (for example, “30 days or 1,000 miles, whichever occurs first”).

(iv) The percentage of the repair cost paid by you (for example, “The dealer will pay 100% of the labor and 100% of the parts.”)

(v) You may, but are not required to, disclose that a warranty from a source other than the dealer applies to the vehicle. If you choose to disclose the applicability of a non-dealer warranty, mark the applicable box or boxes beneath “NON-DEALER WARRANTIES FOR THIS VEHICLE” to indicate: “MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY STILL APPLIES. The manufacturer's original warranty has not expired on some components of the vehicle,” “MANUFACTURER'S USED VEHICLE WARRANTY APPLIES,” and/or “OTHER USED VEHICLE WARRANTY APPLIES.”

If, following negotiations, you and the buyer agree to changes in the warranty coverage, mark the changes on the form, as appropriate. If you first offer the vehicle with a warranty, but then sell it without one, cross out the offered warranty and mark either the “As Is—No Dealer Warranty” box or the “Implied Warranties Only” box, as appropriate.

(3) Service contracts. If you make a service contract available on the vehicle, you must add the following heading and paragraph below the Non-Dealer Warranties Section and mark the box labeled “Service Contract,” unless offering such service contract is “the business of insurance” and such business is regulated by State law. See § 455.5 for the Spanish version of this disclosure.

□ SERVICE CONTRACT. A service contract on this vehicle is available for an extra charge. Ask for details about coverage, deductible, price, and exclusions. If you buy a service contract within 90 days of your purchase of this vehicle, implied warranties under your state's laws may give you additional rights.

3. Revise § 455.5 to read as follows:
§ 455.5 Spanish language sales.

(a) If you conduct a sale in Spanish, the window form required by § 455.2 and the contract disclosures required by § 455.3 must be in that language. You may display on a vehicle both an English language window form and a Spanish language translation of that form. Use the translation and layout for Spanish language sales in Figures 4, 5, and 6.

(b) Use the following language for the “Implied Warranties Only” disclosure when required by § 455.2(b)(1) as illustrated by Figure 5:

SOLO GARANTÍAS IMPLÍCITAS

El concesionario no hace ninguna promesa de reparar lo que sea necesario cuando compre el vehículo o posteriormente. Sin embargo, las garantías implícitas según las leyes estatales podrían darle algunos derechos para hacer que el concesionario se encargue de ciertos problemas que no fueran evidentes cuando compró el vehículo.

(c) Use the following language for the “Service Contract” disclosure required by § 455.2(b)(3) as illustrated by Figures 4 and 5:

CONTRATO DE MANTENIMIENTO. Con un cargo adicional, puede obtener un contrato de mantenimiento para este vehículo. Pregunte acerca de los detalles de la cobertura, los deducibles, el precio y las exclusiones. Si compra un contrato de mantenimiento dentro de los 90 días desde el momento en que compró el vehículo, las garantías implícitas según las leyes de su estado podrían darle derechos adicionales.

(d) Use the following language if you choose to use the Optional Signature Line provided by § 455.2(f):

Por este medio confirmo que he recibido copia de la Guía del Comprador al momento de la compraventa.

4. Add Figures 1 through 6 to part 455 to read as follows: BILLING CODE 6750-01-P ER18NO16.402 ER18NO16.403 ER18NO16.404 ER18NO16.405 ER18NO16.406 ER18NO16.407

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27694 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 201 and 211 [Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0343] RIN 0910-AC53 Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is amending its current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) and labeling regulations regarding medical gases. FDA is requiring that portable cryogenic medical gas containers not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections have gas-specific use outlet connections that cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer. FDA is also requiring that portable cryogenic medical gas containers and high-pressure medical gas cylinders meet certain labeling, naming, and color requirements. These requirements are intended to increase the likelihood that the contents of medical gas containers are accurately identified and reduce the likelihood of the wrong gas being connected to a gas supply system or container. FDA is also revising an existing regulation that conditionally exempts certain medical gases from certain otherwise-applicable labeling requirements in order to add oxygen and nitrogen to the list of gases subject to the exemption, and to remove cyclopropane and ethylene from the list.

DATES:

This rule is effective January 17, 2017. See section V of this document for the compliance date of this final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. Patrick Raulerson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6260, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3522.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Final Rule B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule C. Legal Authority D. Costs and Benefits II. Background A. History of the Rulemaking B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule C. General Overview of the Final Rule III. Legal Authority IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response A. Introduction B. Description of General Comments and FDA Response C. Specific Comments and FDA Response V. Compliance Date VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts A. Introduction B. Summary of Costs and Benefits VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 IX. Federalism X. References I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Final Rule

On April 10, 2006, FDA issued a proposed rule to amend our regulations on CGMP to include new or revised requirements for the labeling, color, dedication, and design of medical gas containers and closures (71 FR 18039). The chief impetus for the proposed rule was a number of incidents in which a medical gas container holding a gas other than oxygen was erroneously connected to a health care facility's oxygen supply system, leading to serious injuries and deaths. In addition, FDA recognized that the regulation that conditionally exempts certain medical gases from certain otherwise-applicable prescription drug labeling regulations did not reflect either industry best practices or FDA's current regulatory expectations.

Following consideration of comments received and further internal deliberation, we are finalizing this rule as described in this document. The final rule is intended to increase the likelihood that the contents of medical gas containers are accurately identified and reduce the likelihood of the wrong gas being connected to a gas supply system or container. The final rule also modifies the medical gas conditional labeling exemption regulation such that it now largely reflects existing industry best practices and FDA's current regulatory expectations regarding the labeling of medical gases.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule

We received approximately 50 comments on the proposed rule. The most detailed comments were from industry trade associations. The other comments were largely from individual medical gas firms, consultants, or other industry stakeholders, and they generally expressed agreement with the trade associations' comments. We discuss all significant comments in section IV.

The final rule requires that portable cryogenic medical gas containers not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections have gas-specific use outlet connections that cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer. The rule further requires that portable cryogenic medical gas containers and high-pressure medical gas cylinders meet certain labeling, naming, and color requirements. Principally, portable cryogenic medical gas containers are required to bear a 360° wraparound label identifying the contents of the container, and high-pressure medical gas cylinders are required to be colored on the shoulder of the container in the FDA-designated color or colors associated with the gas or gases held in the container. These requirements are intended to increase the likelihood that the contents of medical gas containers are accurately identified and reduce the likelihood of the wrong gas being connected to a gas supply system or container.

The final rule also revises the medical gas conditional labeling exemption regulation to add oxygen and nitrogen to the list of medical gases subject to the exemption, and to remove cyclopropane and ethylene from the list. The final rule further revises this regulation by adding new warning statement content to be included in oxygen labeling and by expanding the scope of the regulation to include medically appropriate mixtures of medical gases.

C. Legal Authority

Medical gases are generally regulated as prescription drugs under sections 201(g)(1) and 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1) and 353(b)(1)) (though oxygen may be dispensed without a prescription for certain uses specified at section 576(b)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ddd-1(b)(2)), and are subject to regulation under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)). Sections 575 and 576 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ddd and 360ddd-1) address the regulation of medical gases and designated medical gases. FDA is invoking its authority under sections 501(a)(2)(B), 502(f) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)), 576(a), and 701(a) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) of the FD&C Act to create or modify CGMP and labeling regulations applicable to medical gases to ensure that they meet the requirements of the FD&C Act as to safety and have the identity and strength, and meet the quality and purity characteristics, that they purport or are represented to possess, and are labeled with adequate warnings and instructions for use.

D. Costs and Benefits

The rule is expected to provide a modest net social benefit (estimated benefits minus estimated costs) to society. Costs are attributed to coloring medical gas containers, complying with the 360° wraparound label requirement for portable cryogenic containers, and requiring gas-specific use outlet connections on portable cryogenic containers to be permanently attached to the valve body (e.g., by silver brazing) or attached to the valve body using a locking mechanism or other appropriate device so that only the manufacturer can readily remove or replace them. Using a standard 10 year time period, we estimate annualized costs to range between $180,000 and $1.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate and between $210,000 and $1.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Benefits are attributed to reducing the probability that medical personnel accidentally administer the wrong gas to patients, resulting in serious injury or death. We estimate annualized benefits to range between $800,000 and $2.8 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and between $2.5 million and $8.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Together we estimate annualized net benefits to range between $620,000 and $1.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and between $2.3 million and $6.5 million using a 7 percent discount rate.

II. Background A. History of the Rulemaking

In the Federal Register of April 10, 2006, FDA issued a proposed rule to amend our regulations on CGMP to include new requirements for the labeling, color, dedication, and design of medical gas containers and closures. The chief impetus for issuance of the proposed rule was a number of incidents in which a medical gas container holding a gas other than oxygen was erroneously connected to a health care facility's oxygen supply system, leading to serious injuries and deaths. FDA was also concerned with reports of serious injuries attributable to contamination of high-pressure medical gas cylinders with residue of industrial cleaning solvents, likely as a result of inadequate cleaning during conversion of the cylinder from industrial to medical use. For a detailed account of these incidents, please refer to the proposed rule (71 FR 18039 at 18040-18041).

Accordingly, FDA proposed certain regulatory requirements intended to (1) reduce the likelihood of the wrong gas being attached to a gas supply system or container (and in particular to reduce the likelihood of a gas other than oxygen being connected to an oxygen supply system), (2) make the contents of medical gas containers more easily and accurately identifiable, and (3) reduce the risk of contamination of medical gases. Additionally, FDA proposed including medical air, oxygen, and nitrogen among, and excluding cyclopropane and ethylene from, the list of gases that are conditionally exempt from certain labeling requirements as described in § 201.161 (21 CFR 201.161). FDA solicited written comments on the proposed rule.

Following publication of the proposed rule, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) was enacted (Pub. L. 112-144 (July 9, 2012)). Title XI, Subtitle B of FDASIA, “Medical Gas Product Regulation,” added new sections 575, 576, and 577 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ddd, 360ddd-1, and 360ddd-2), creating a new certification process for certain “designated” medical gases, including all of the gases listed at § 201.161 as amended by this rule. Section 575 of the FD&C Act defines the term “designated medical gas” to include oxygen, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, helium, carbon monoxide, and medical air that meet the standards set forth in an official compendium. Section 576 of the FD&C Act permits any person to file a request for certification of a medical gas as a designated medical gas for certain specified indications. A designated medical gas for which a certification is granted is deemed to have in effect an approved application under section 505 (New Drug Application) or 512 (New Animal Drug Application) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355 or 360b) (see FD&C Act section 576(a)(3)(A)(i)). This approval applies to the designated medical gas alone or in combination, as medically appropriate, with one or more other designated medical gases for which certifications have been granted (Id.).

Section 576 of the FD&C Act also addresses the labeling and prescription drug status of designated medical gases. Section 576(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, similar to the conditional labeling exemption at § 201.161(a), specifies how the labeling of designated medical gases may meet certain generally applicable statutory labeling requirements. Specifically, section 576(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act provides that the requirements of sections 503(b)(4) of the FD&C Act (regarding labeling of a drug as a prescription drug) and 502(f) of the FD&C Act (regarding inclusion of adequate directions for use and adequate warnings in drug labeling) are deemed to have been met for a designated medical gas if the labeling on the final use container for the medical gas bears: (1) The information required by section 503(b)(4); (2) a warning statement concerning the use of the medical gas as determined by the Secretary by regulation; and (3) appropriate directions and warnings concerning storage and handling. Section 576(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act further provides that, in the case of oxygen provided for certain uses specified at section 576(b)(2)(A), the requirements of section 503(b)(4) of the FD&C Act are deemed to have been met if the labeling bears a warning that the oxygen can be used for emergency use only and for all other medical applications a prescription is required. Finally, section 576(b) of the FD&C Act provides that designated medical gases shall generally be subject to the requirements of section 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (requiring that drugs meeting certain specified conditions be dispensed only upon prescription), while also providing that oxygen may be dispensed without a prescription for certain specified uses.

B. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule

FDA received approximately 50 written comments on the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by trade associations representing the medical gas and home health care industries, medical gas firms, medical gas industry consultants and other industry stakeholders, and one State regulatory body.

The comments addressed the following topics, among others:

• The appropriate warning statements to be included in oxygen and medical air labeling.

• Safety issues associated with converting a gas container from industrial to medical use and how best to address them.

• The utility and appropriateness of coloring medical gas containers in whole or in part.

• The appropriate content and configuration of wraparound labeling on portable cryogenic medical gas containers.

• Estimated costs to comply with the proposed rule and whether such costs are justified under a cost-benefit analysis.

C. General Overview of the Final Rule

This final rule includes many of the provisions of the April 2006 proposed rule, with certain modifications described in section IV.C of this document. In particular, the final rule adds oxygen and nitrogen to, and removes cyclopropane and ethylene from, the list of medical gases in § 201.161(a) that are conditionally exempt from the labeling requirements of § 201.100(b)(2) and (3), and (c)(1). The final rule also requires that portable cryogenic medical gas containers and high-pressure medical gas cylinders meet certain labeling, naming, and coloring requirements as provided in new § 201.328. The final rule further requires that portable cryogenic medical gas containers not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections have gas-specific use outlet connections that cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer by amending § 211.94 (21 CFR 211.94) through the addition of new paragraph (e).

This final rule also reflects revisions FDA is making to the April 2006 proposed rule in light of comments received. In addition to other changes discussed in section IV.C of this document, FDA is making the following significant changes to the proposed rule:

• Revisions to Conditional Labeling Exemptions for Medical Gases

FDA is making additional revisions to § 201.161 in response to concerns raised by comments. First, in response to a comment questioning § 201.161(b)'s exclusion of gas mixtures from the scope of the § 201.161(a) conditional labeling exemptions applicable to certain medical gases, FDA is removing this exclusion. Second, in response to comments that oxygen labeling should bear a different warning statement from other medical gases listed at § 201.161, paragraph (a) of § 201.161 now includes new warning statement requirements specific to oxygen. Third, in response to comments that medical air labeling should bear a different warning statement from other medical gases listed at § 201.161, FDA has determined that medical air should be removed from the scope of the final rule, for the reasons discussed in section IV.C of this document. Fourth, FDA is also revising the regulation such that the warning statement that must be included on labeling to qualify for the labeling exemption must contain certain specified information, but need not consist of the exact words used in the regulation.

If the labeling on a final use container of a designated medical gas (or medically appropriate mixture of designated medical gases) includes the information required by section 503(b)(4) of the FD&C Act as well as the information required to obtain the conditional labeling exemptions provided at § 201.161(a) as revised by this rule, FDA will consider such labeling to meet the conditions set forth at section 576(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, and, therefore, to have met the requirements of sections 503(b)(4) and 502(f) of the FD& C Act.

• Proposed Prohibition on Conversion of Cryogenic Containers and High-Pressure Cylinders From Industrial to Medical Use

In § 211.94(e)(1) of the proposed rule, FDA proposed generally prohibiting cryogenic containers and high-pressure cylinders used to hold industrial gases from being converted to medical use to minimize the risk of contamination of medical gases by industrial contaminants or cleaning solvents. As discussed further in section IV.C of this document, FDA agrees with comments stating that such a prohibition would be unnecessarily costly, as these types of contamination incidents appear to be rare and existing regulations regarding cleaning and inspection of drug containers and closures are sufficient to address this issue. Accordingly, FDA is not finalizing this proposed requirement.

III. Legal Authority

Medical gases are generally regulated as prescription drugs under sections 201(g)(1) and 503(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (though oxygen may be dispensed without a prescription for certain uses specified at section 576(b)(2) of the FD&C Act, and are subject to regulation under section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act. Sections 575 and 576 of the FD&C Act address the regulation of medical gases and designated medical gases. Under sections 501(a)(2)(B), 502(f), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act, FDA has the authority to create and modify CGMP and labeling regulations to ensure that drugs meet the requirements of the FD&C Act as to safety and have the identity and strength, and meet the quality and purity characteristics, that they purport or are represented to possess, and are labeled with adequate warnings and instructions for use. Medical gas containers, closures, and labeling are integral parts of medical gas drug products and play a critical role in ensuring that these products are safe and have the appropriate identity, strength, quality, and purity. Medical gas mix-ups have caused deaths and serious injuries. These incidents have occurred despite current regulations and guidance addressing the safe handling of medical gases. FDA is therefore invoking the authority granted by sections 701(a), 501(a)(2)(B), 502(f), and 576(a) of the FD&C Act to issue CGMP and labeling regulations designed to facilitate the safe use of medical gases and to ensure that medical gases are labeled with adequate warnings and instructions for use. The specific requirements in these regulations will help to ensure the safety of these products.

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule and FDA Response A. Introduction

We describe and respond to comments on the proposed rule in this section. We respond to certain comments on the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (see Section VI). For ease of identification, the word “Comment,” in parentheses, will appear before the comment's description, and the word “Response,” in parentheses, will appear before our response. The number assigned to each comment is purely for organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in which it was received. Many of the comments voiced the same or highly similar concerns and made the same or highly similar recommendations; these comments have been consolidated where possible.

B. Description of General Comments and FDA Response

(Comment 1) Many comments contend that FDA's proposal does not reflect the risk-based principles that have historically been enunciated in connection with recent CGMP policy. These comments state that risk-based principles focus regulation on critical areas that are likely to achieve the greatest public health impact. Thus, these comments state that because the impact of FDA's proposed rule is disproportionate to and beyond the scope of any public health risk associated with medical gases, it is inconsistent with the Agency's risk-based approach for CGMP. The comments further contend that the incidents cited in the preamble of the proposed rule do not support the number of requirements proposed, and that a single requirement in the proposed rule—requirement for secure connections on portable containers—would have prevented all but one of the fatalities cited in the preamble.

(Response 1) FDA agrees in part with these comments and has, following reanalysis of expected costs and benefits, declined to adopt certain provisions in the proposed rule and has revised other proposed provisions to more efficiently achieve public health objectives. Many of the requirements in the final rule are consistent with what we understand to be industry practices (Refs. 1-3). We continue to believe that medical gas containers and closures, such as portable cryogenic containers and high-pressure cylinders, are integral parts of the drug product and play a critical role in ensuring that the drug provided to the patient has the appropriate identity, strength, quality, and purity. Accordingly, we believe that this rule, as finalized, is fully consistent with FDA's risk-based approach to CGMP regulation.

(Comment 2) Many comments contend that FDA significantly underestimated the costs to industry imposed by the rule as proposed. These comments estimate these potential costs to be in the range of $855 million to $1.3 billion, as opposed to FDA's estimate of $950,000 to $1.2 million. These comments request that the cost assumptions and conclusions contained in the preamble to the proposed rule be critically reexamined by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

(Response 2) We considered these concerns, as appropriate, in preparing the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (see Section VI).

C. Specific Comments and FDA Response • Revisions To Labeling Exemptions for Certain Medical Gases (§ 201.161)

FDA proposed adding medical air, oxygen, and nitrogen to the list of gases conditionally exempted by § 201.161(a) from the labeling requirements of § 201.100(b)(2) and (3), and (c)(1). FDA proposed these changes because, based on its years of regulatory experience with these gases, FDA believed that compliance with § 201.100(b)(2) and (3), and (c)(1) would be unnecessary if the warning statement and storage and handling directions required to obtain the conditional § 201.161(a) labeling exemptions were included in the labeling of such gases and the labeling and coloring requirements found in proposed § 211.94(e)(4) were met. FDA also proposed removing cyclopropane and ethylene from § 201.161(a), as these gases are no longer used in medical procedures because they are flammable and pose a risk of explosion or fire.

Comments support these proposed changes to the list of exempted gases. Many comments expressed concern, however, over how these proposed changes would affect the labeling of oxygen and medical air. These concerns are set forth in comments 3 and 4, followed by FDA's response.

(Comment 3) Many comments express significant concerns with FDA's proposal to add oxygen to the list of gases at § 201.161(a) without providing a warning statement specific to oxygen. The warning statement at § 201.161(a)(1) previously provided that the gas may only be used by or under the supervision of a licensed practitioner. These comments argue that requiring this statement for oxygen could eliminate the ability of first responders to administer oxygen without a prescription. These comments also note that the labeling on oxygen containers that has long been in use by the industry, which provides for use without a prescription in certain situations when administered by properly trained personnel, would no longer be acceptable and would need to be changed. These comments state that further changes are needed to address these issues.

(Comment 4) Many comments further note that the warning statement at § 201.161(a) does not include certain warnings currently included on oxygen labels. For instance, widely used oxygen labeling warns that uninterrupted use of high concentrations of oxygen over a long duration without monitoring its effect on oxygen content of arterial blood may be harmful and that oxygen should not be used on patients who have stopped breathing unless used in conjunction with resuscitative equipment.

(Response to Comments 3 and 4) FDA is further revising § 201.161(a)(1) in response to these comments.

Prior to the revisions finalized in this rule, § 201.161(a) provided that if the labeling of the medical gases listed in the rule—carbon dioxide, cyclopropane, ethylene, helium, and nitrous oxide intended for drug use—bore a specified warning statement and any needed directions concerning the conditions for storage and warnings against the inherent dangers in the handling of the specific compressed gas, those gases would be exempt from certain otherwise-applicable labeling requirements concerning the recommended or usual dosage, the drug's route of administration, and adequate directions for use. Section 201.161(b) provided that the exemption in § 201.161(a) did not apply to any mixture of the gases covered by the regulation with oxygen or with each other. In the 2006 proposed rulemaking FDA proposed adding oxygen, medical air, and nitrogen, and removing cyclopropane and ethylene, from the scope of § 201.161, but proposed no other changes to the rule.

As many comments point out, the warning statement previously specified at § 201.161(a)(1) differs significantly from the warning statement that has long been in use on oxygen labeling. FDA agrees with these comments that this oxygen-specific warning statement is more useful and appropriate for oxygen than the general warning statement previously specified at § 201.161(a)(1).

FDA further agrees with these comments that conditioning the § 201.161(a) labeling exemptions on inclusion of a warning statement limiting oxygen to prescription use would be inconsistent with the longstanding use of oxygen without a prescription in certain situations. It would also be inconsistent with new section 576(b)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act which, as discussed in section II.A of this document, provides that, in the case of oxygen provided without a prescription for certain uses specified at section 576(b)(2)(A), the requirements of section 503(b)(4) of the FD&C Act shall be deemed to have been met if the labeling bears a warning that the oxygen can be used for emergency use only and for all of other medical applications a prescription is required.

Therefore, § 201.161(a)(1)(i) of this final rule provides warning statement requirements specific to oxygen, as well as an additional warning statement requirement for oxygen that may be provided for certain uses without a prescription. FDA believes most oxygen containers currently marketed in the United States bear labeling that satisfies these new requirements (Ref. 1).

(Comment 5) Some comments express concerns with FDA's proposal to add medical air to the list of gases at § 201.161(a) without providing a warning statement specific to medical air. These comments point out that widely used medical air labeling indicates that medical air may be used without a prescription by properly trained personnel for breathing support, while for all other uses a prescription is required. These comments note that such labeling would be inconsistent with the warning statement previously specified at § 201.161(a)(1), which provided that the gas may only be used by or under the supervision of a licensed practitioner.

(Response 5) FDA acknowledges the comments that certain non-prescription uses of medical air are medically appropriate, and, accordingly, that the `prescription only' warning statement at § 201.161(a)(1)(i) as finalized by this rule is not appropriate for medical air. FDA is not finalizing the proposal to add medical air to the list of gases at § 201.161, and the question of what constitutes an appropriate warning statement for medical air remains under consideration by FDA.

(Comment 6) Many comments note that the proposed rule does not address labeling for medical gas mixtures, but rather leaves in place § 201.161(b)'s exclusion of gas mixtures from the scope of the § 201.161(a) conditional labeling exemptions. These comments recommend for the short term that § 201.161(b) remain as currently published but that FDA nonetheless permit these medical gas mixtures to be labeled consistent with industry practice, which utilizes the warning statement previously specified at § 201.161(a)(1).

(Response 6) FDA notes that, as discussed in section II.A of this document, following publication of the proposed rule new section 576(a)(3)(A)(i) was added to the FD&C Act by FDASIA. This new section provides that designated medical gases for which a certification is granted are deemed alone or in combination, as medically appropriate, with one or more other designated medical gases for which certifications have been granted to have in effect an approved application.

Accordingly, FDA is further revising § 201.161(a)(1) in response to these comments. Specifically, FDA has determined that medically appropriate mixtures of the gases listed at § 201.161(a) should be eligible for the conditional labeling exemptions provided by § 201.161(a). Accordingly, in this final rule FDA is removing the § 201.161(b) exclusion and is specifying that the general warning statement requirements applicable to the gases listed at § 201.161(a) (other than oxygen) are also applicable to medically appropriate mixtures of the listed gases (see § 201.161(a)(1)(ii) of this final rule).

(Comment 7) A comment requests that medical xenon be added to the list of exempted gases in § 201.161(a) as it is used clinically as a general anesthetic and as a diagnostic and test agent.

(Response 7) FDA disagrees that medical xenon should be added to the list of gases for which the § 201.161(a) conditional labeling exemptions are available. Xenon is not a designated medical gas and is not otherwise approved for use as a general anesthetic. Certain xenon gas radioisotopes have been approved as diagnostic agents, but these products have approved prescription drug labeling. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to add xenon gas to the list of gases at § 201.161(a).

(Comment 8) Many comments contend that the content in proposed § 211.94(e)(4) is misplaced by being located in part 211 (21 CFR part 211, CGMP requirements) rather than part 201 (21 CFR part 201, labeling requirements). These comments recommend that any proposed labeling requirements be included in part 201.

(Response 8) FDA largely agrees with these comments and is reorganizing this content in the final rule. Specifically, the labeling content requirements in proposed § 211.94(e)(4) are being finalized under new § 201.328, while requirements that medical gas labels and coloring materials be resistant to wear and, in the case of labels, not susceptible to inadvertent removal, have been retained in § 211.94(e).

• Requirement for 360° Wraparound Label for Portable Cryogenic Medical Gas Containers (§ 201.328(a)(1))

In § 211.94(e)(4) of the proposed rule (renumbered as § 201.328(a)(1) in this final rule), FDA proposed to require portable cryogenic containers to bear 360° wraparound labeling that meets naming, lettering, and placement specifications.

(Comment 9) Many comments expressed concern about the proposed requirement that the word “Medical” precede the name of the gas on the wraparound label. These comments state that there is a risk that users would focus on the “Medical” designation and ignore the more significant information, i.e., the identity of the gas itself (e.g., oxygen versus nitrogen). Therefore, these comments recommend removing this requirement from the final rule. Some of these comments also state that this naming requirement would be inconsistent with the “established name” of the gas, e.g., Oxygen USP or Nitrogen NF (see definition of “established name” at section 502(e)(3) of the FD&C Act). As an alternative, one comment proposes that the rule refer to the product name and provide that either the word “Medical” may precede, or “USP” or “NF” may follow, the product name.

(Response 9) FDA proposed adding the word “Medical” to the wraparound label to distinguish containers labeled with medical gases from containers holding industrial gases. This proposed requirement was intended to make the contents of the containers more readily and accurately identified by persons responsible for handling and connecting them to medical gas supply systems in hospitals or other health care facilities and thereby reduce the likelihood of medical gas mix-ups. However, FDA agrees with the comments that inclusion of the word “Medical” in the name of the gas would be inconsistent with the established names of medical gases.

Accordingly, as set forth in § 201.328(a)(2), FDA will instead require that the portable cryogenic containers bear a label (either the wraparound label or a separate label) near the top of the container but below the top seam weld that includes the phrase “For Medical Use,” “Medical Gas,” or some similar phrase that indicates the gas is for medical use in conspicuous lettering.

FDA has also reconsidered the proposed requirement that gases be identified on the wraparound label by their “standard names.” Section 502(e) of the FD&C Act provides that a drug product is misbranded unless its label bears the established name of the drug, if there is such a name. All of the gases listed at § 201.328(c) have established names. Thus, the proposed requirement regarding “standard names” is not necessary, and we are removing this concept from the final rule.

(Comment 10) A few of the parties providing comments state that while they agree with the proposed requirement at § 211.94(e)(4)(i)(E) that the label be placed “as close to the top of the container as possible but below the top weld seam”, they object to the following phrase: “. . . so that it cannot be easily detached or worn” (§ 211.94(e)(4)(i)(F)). These comments express concern that if the label is worn or detached by the user, for whatever reason, the manufacturer may be considered to be not in compliance with the proposed rule requirements, when in fact the firm may have properly placed the label.

(Response 10) FDA agrees that this proposed requirement should be revised. The key issue is that the wraparound label be affixed such that it is not susceptible to wear or to being inadvertently removed during normal use, and FDA is revising this requirement accordingly (see § 211.94(e)(2) of this final rule).

(Comment 11) Many comments note that the minimum lettering height requirement for the name of the gas on the wraparound label in the proposed rule (23/4 inches) is inconsistent with the industry practice (minimum letter height of 2 inches). According to these comments, requiring 23/4 inch letters will reduce the number of times the name can be fully printed on the label, and will come at a considerable expense to those suppliers that currently comply with the 2-inch industry practice.

(Response 11) FDA is revising the minimum letter height requirement in consideration of these comments. The final rule states that the lettering height for the name of the gas on the label must be at least 2 inches high (see § 201.328(a)(1)(ii) of this final rule).

• Color Requirements for Medical Gas Cylinders (§ 201.328(a)(1)(v) and (b))

(Comment 12) Many comments support color-coding high-pressure cylinders, but are concerned that FDA may be placing undue emphasis on this means of identification. These comments contend that health care personnel should primarily rely on the label to identify the gas or gases in a container, and argue that reliance on color is problematic because of the variability of lighting conditions, color fading, and potential personnel colorblindness. Other comments state that reliance on color coding would appear to contradict training programs that industry and FDA have implemented to prevent mix-ups, as the consistent and fundamental themes of these training programs has been to emphasize that the label should be the primary indicator of a container's contents.

(Response 12) FDA agrees that the wording on the label should be used as the primary means of identifying a drug product. Requiring color coding of high-pressure cylinders, which we understand is already industry practice (Ref. 2), simply provides an additional safeguard to facilitate accurate identification of the drug product and detection of potential errors. Additionally, § 211.25 addresses the need to train qualified personnel in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a drug product. Proper training should help mitigate against the possibility that users might improperly rely solely on the cylinder's color to identify its contents.

(Comment 13) Many comments recommend removing the requirement of “colored in whole” for non-aluminum high-pressure cylinders. These comments state that the current industry practice is to paint the shoulder to match the designated color for that medical gas. This is based on manufacturer recommendations that some non-aluminum high-pressure cylinders should not be painted in whole due to concerns about concealing defects.

(Response 13) FDA agrees with these comments. Thus, the final rule requires only that high-pressure medical gas cylinders be colored on the shoulder portion of the cylinder (see § 201.328(b)), which is consistent with what FDA understands to be industry practice (Ref. 2).

(Comment 14) Many comments dispute FDA's assumption that a large majority of high-pressure medical gas cylinders are already in compliance with the proposed coloring requirements. These comments note that portions of the shoulders of many cylinders are painted white to make retest information more visible, and that the upper neck portion of many cylinders are not painted a color based on the contents of the cylinder.

(Response 14) The cylinder coloring requirement in the final rule (see § 201.328(b)) would not require recoloring of cylinders colored in the manner described in the comments. As long as the cylinder shoulder is colored in the FDA-designated color or colors, the upper neck portion of the cylinder need not be that same color and use of white to make retesting information on a portion of the shoulder of the cylinder more visible is acceptable.

(Comment 15) Many comments recommend removal of the requirement that high-pressure medical gas cylinders containing mixtures of gases be painted in rough proportion to the fractions of gases contained in the mixture. These comments express concern that this method may cause the end user to ignore the label and rely on color proportions to identify the contents of a mixture. Additionally, these comments recommend that the following language be incorporated in the regulation: “when color marking consists of 2 or more colors, the pattern shall permit a portion of the colors to be seen together when viewed from the top,” which is consistent with industry practice.

(Response 15) FDA agrees with these comments. Therefore, FDA is revising the rule to require that the color for every constituent gas be visible when the cylinder is viewed from the top, and to remove the proportionality requirement.

(Comment 16) Many comments recommend removing the proposed requirement (at § 211.94(e)(4)(i)(G) in the proposed rule) that if the shoulder portion of a portable cryogenic medical gas container is colored, the color used must be the FDA-designated color of the gas held in the container. These comments point out that painting cryogenic containers with dark colors causes increased heat absorption, accelerating the rate of product venting, which could lead to unsafe conditions. These comments also note that large cryogenic containers made from carbon steel are painted in whole (including on the shoulder) in a light-reflective color, which would not necessarily correspond to the FDA-designated color or colors of the gas or gases held in the container.

(Response 16) FDA agrees with these concerns and is revising the proposed coloring requirement for portable cryogenic medical gas containers. As set forth in § 201.328(a)(1)(v) of the final rule, a portable cryogenic medical gas container may only be colored, in whole or in part, in the color or colors designated at § 201.328(c) if the gas or gases held in the container correspond to that color or those colors. The container may still be colored in a light-reflective color such as white (or some other color that is not an FDA-designated gas color), or simply not colored at all.

Finally, FDA is revising color requirements for the wraparound label such that they only apply to portable cryogenic medical gas containers that hold a single gas (see § 201.328(a)(1)(i) of this final rule). FDA believes that multiple colors on a single wraparound label—either in the lettering or in the background—may be impractical. Firms may still choose to follow the color scheme at § 201.328(a)(1)(i) for portable cryogenic medical gas containers that hold gas mixtures or blends, but will not be required to do so.

• Proposed Prohibition on Conversion of Cryogenic Containers and High-Pressure Cylinders From Industrial to Medical Use (Proposed § 211.94(e)(1))

In § 211.94(e)(1) of the proposed rule, FDA proposed prohibiting cryogenic containers and high-pressure cylinders used to hold industrial gases from being converted to medical use, subject to limited exceptions.

(Comment 17) Many comments oppose any requirements to dedicate high-pressure cylinders and cryogenic containers to solely one use—industrial or medical. These comments contend that the root cause of the contamination incidents involving high-pressure cylinders discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule was the improper cleaning of cylinders, regardless of whether the cylinders previously held gases intended for medical or industrial use. These comments argue that the costs that would be associated with implementing this rule are not justified considering that the preamble to the proposed rule identified only two contamination incidents leading to injuries. According to these comments, these costs would include procuring additional containers (and associated assets), tracking individual containers over their useful life, marking containers for industrial or medical use, and increased distribution expenses. These comments further argue that FDA significantly underestimated the costs associated with this requirement in the economic analysis provided in the preamble to the proposed rule.

Many comments state that the proposed prohibition on conversion of medical gas containers from industrial to medical use is unwarranted because existing CGMP requirements, particularly § 211.94(c) (requiring cleaning of containers and closures to assure they are suitable for their intended use) and § 211.100(a) (requiring written procedures for process and production control designed to assure drug products have the identity, strength, quality, and purity they purport or are represented to possess), are adequate to prevent contamination associated with such conversion. These comments further argue that the proposed rule is inconsistent with FDA's past advice that medical gas assets can be converted from industrial to medical use and need not be dedicated to industrial use provided the items in question undergo validated cleaning procedures when converted to medical use.

(Response 17) FDA has reevaluated this proposed requirement in light of these concerns. FDA has determined that the risk of contamination associated with converting gas containers from industrial to medical use is relatively low, and can be fully addressed if the manufacturer, in compliance with §§ 211.84(a), 211.94(c), 211.100, and other applicable CGMP regulations, employs adequate, validated cleaning and production control strategies when performing such conversion. FDA also agrees with the comments that the proposed requirement to dedicate containers to either industrial or medical use would be quite expensive to implement, and, in light of our assessment that existing regulations are adequate to address this concern, not cost-justified. Accordingly, we are removing this requirement from the final rule.

(Comment 18) One comment states that the incidents dated March 20, 1998, and March 27, 1996, attributed in the proposed rule to contamination likely associated with conversion of high-pressure cylinders from industrial to medical use, could have been ignition events involving polytetraethylene seals or sealing tape. The comment suggests that a more detailed description of these events should be provided in order to make clear that the odors and compounds detected were from improper cleaning and not from ignition events.

(Response 18) As stated, FDA has reevaluated the necessity of the proposed non-conversion requirement and is removing it from the final rule.

• Requirement for Secure Gas-Specific Use Outlet Connections on Portable Cryogenic Medical Gas Containers (§ 211.94(e)(1))

In § 211.94(e)(3) of the proposed rule, FDA proposed to require that portable cryogenic medical gas containers not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections have gas-specific use outlet connections that cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer. FDA is finalizing this provision (renumbered as § 211.94(e)(1)) with certain minor modifications explained in this document.

(Comment 19) Many comments support this requirement, as it would have a positive impact on patient safety by making medical gas mix-ups less likely. In fact, these comments recommend that the rule be extended to other outlets typically found on portable cryogenic medical gas containers, namely, the vent outlet and liquid fill/withdrawal outlet.

(Response 19) FDA is not aware of mix-up incidents involving the vent outlet valves or with liquid fill/withdrawal outlets, and such hypothetical mix-ups do not seem likely, given that the gas use outlet connection should be the only connection used to connect a portable cryogenic container to a health care facility's gas supply system. Accordingly, FDA believes that it is not necessary to extend the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement to vent outlets or liquid fill/withdrawal outlets.

(Comment 20) Some comments propose that the Agency slightly modify the exemption for “small cryogenic gas containers for use by individual patients” from the proposed definition of “portable cryogenic medical gas containers.” These comments note that some liquid oxygen home units designed for use by individual patients are, in fact, also used in certain situations to fill other containers for use by patients. These comments are concerned that if the exemption is not clarified, these liquid oxygen home units may be subject to the secure gas use outlet connection rule if they are used to fill other containers. Accordingly, these comments propose that the exemption be revised to include “small cryogenic gas containers designed for use by individual patients at their residence, including health care facilities” (emphasis added).

(Comment 21) Many comments propose that FDA clarify in the rule that the requirement for secure gas-specific use outlet connections is inapplicable to cryogenic containers that are too large (e.g., tank trucks, trailers, rail cars) to be connected to a medical gas supply system.

(Response to Comments 20 and 21) FDA agrees that the definition of “portable cryogenic medical gas container” as used in the rule should be clarified. As such, we are clarifying in the final rule that cryogenic gas containers not designed to be connected to a medical gas supply system, including tank trucks, trailers, rail cars, and liquid oxygen home units, are exempt from the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement.

(Comment 22) A comment recommends that base units used to fill portable containers for use by patients in hospitals and other health care facilities, and large cryogenic containers that may be placed on trailers along with vaporizers and that are used as emergency backup when repairs are performed on the health care facility's permanent storage system, also be excluded from the rule. The comment states that because these base units and containers remain within the control of the medical gas manufacturer, and not the consumer, the risk of an improper connection is substantially reduced.

(Response 22) FDA does not agree that base units used to fill portable containers for use by patients in hospitals and other health care facilities and large cryogenic containers that may be placed on trailers along with vaporizers and that are used as emergency backup when repairs are performed on the health care facility's permanent storage system should be excluded from the rule. We believe that requiring such containers (which are designed to be connected to a medical gas supply system) to have secure gas-specific use outlet connections will help minimize the likelihood that an incorrect gas is connected to a gas distribution system or container.

(Comment 23) Many comments express concern with the discussion of records maintenance in the proposed rule. The PRIA indicated that there could be a slight increase in the medical gas industry's container closure records maintenance activities under § 211.184 if the industry chooses to use locking valves or devices to bring portable cryogenic containers into compliance with the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement. The proposed rule stated that under existing § 211.184(b), records of the results of any test or examination of a container closure under § 211.82(a) must be maintained, and that under existing § 211.184(c), an individual inventory record must be maintained for each container closure. FDA estimated that about 10 percent of the existing inventory of portable cryogenic containers would need to be modified to comply with the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement, that the industry would choose to comply through use of locking valves or devices (rather than silver brazing, which is more expensive), and that the records maintenance activities associated with this work would amount to about 2 minutes per locking device per year, resulting in an annualized records maintenance cost of about $54,000 dollars per year. The estimate of 2 minutes per locking device per year includes time associated with the initial inspection of the locking valve or device by the manufacturer (71 FR 18039 at 18048-18049).

The comments express concern that the proposed rule's reference to § 211.184(c) in particular entails a change of policy from FDA's historic application of records maintenance regulations to the medical gas industry and amounts to a new records maintenance expectation for medical gas containers and closures that would cost the industry between $376 and $665 million dollars to meet. The comments appear to reach this much higher number by assuming that it would be necessary to serialize valves and/or permanently mark all valves and connections on portable cryogenic containers to meet what they contend are FDA's new records maintenance expectations.

(Response 23) FDA does not believe that serializing or permanently marking all valves and connections on portable cryogenic containers is necessary to satisfy the requirements of § 211.184. FDA did not intend to announce new or heightened records maintenance expectations for medical gas container closures in the proposed rule. While FDA believes that the records maintenance activities used to arrive at the estimate in the PRIA section for the records maintenance costs associated with the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement are appropriate, medical gas manufacturers may employ alternative records maintenance procedures to document any work performed to bring container closures into compliance with the secure gas-specific use outlet connection requirement.

As discussed in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (see Section VI), the estimated records maintenance costs associated with the secure gas use outlet connections requirements have been revised to range between $70 and $3,500. This reduction in estimated costs is largely driven by updated information showing that the number of portable cryogenic containers in the market is much lower than was thought at the time the proposed rule was issued.

• Miscellaneous Comment

(Comment 24) A comment requests that the final rule include a requirement that all personnel handling medical gases have documented competency training. This comment states that medical gases are USP listed and should be delivered by qualified personnel, such as respiratory therapists (who, according to this comment, are the only health care professionals specifically educated and competency-tested in all aspects of oxygen therapy).

(Response 24) In § 211.25 individuals engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a drug product (which would include a medical gas manufacturer's delivery personnel) are required to have the education, training, and experience necessary to perform assigned functions. Further, we are not aware that actual administration of medical gases to patients is part of the function of medical gas delivery personnel, so it is not clear why such personnel would need to be trained to administer gases to patients. We believe the existing regulation (§ 211.25) is sufficient to address any issues that may arise regarding the qualifications of a medical gas manufacturer's delivery personnel.

V. Compliance Date

This rule is effective January 17, 2017. Affected firms and persons are encouraged to comply as soon as possible after the effective date. We recognize, however, that while most of the requirements of this final rule are already industry practices (Refs. 1-3), such practices are not ubiquitous. Accordingly, the compliance date is May 17, 2017. We believe it would be reasonable for affected firms and persons to fully implement this final rule in that amount of time.

(Comment 25) FDA received several comments that the 60-day time period proposed for implementation of the proposed rule is insufficient. These comments state that the proposal will impact every portable cryogenic container and request that FDA provide a reasonable transition period consistent with FDA precedents.

(Response 25) FDA agrees, and is establishing a compliance date that is 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, as noted previously. The Agency believes that it would be reasonable for affected firms and persons to fully implement the final rule in this amount of time. Furthermore, to avoid any contradiction with this compliance date, and for purposes of clarity, FDA is removing paragraph (c) of § 201.161, which states that regulatory action may be initiated with respect to any article shipped within the jurisdiction of the FD&C Act contrary to the provisions of this section after 60 days following publication of this section in the Federal Register.

VI. Economic Analysis of Impacts A. Introduction

We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the final rule imposes new burdens on small entities, we cannot certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

This final rule amends the CGMP and labeling regulations for medical gases. These amendments include the following: (1) Portable cryogenic medical gas containers not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections must have gas-specific use outlet connections that cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer; (2) portable cryogenic medical gas containers must have a 360° wraparound label that clearly identifies the container's contents and conforms to certain placement, lettering, and other requirements; (3) high-pressure medical gas cylinders (and portable cryogenic medical gas containers, if colored) must be colored using an FDA-designated standard color (or colors in the case of gas mixtures); (4) the list of medical gases that are conditionally exempt from certain otherwise-applicable labeling requirements has been revised; and (5) the warning statements required to be on final use containers to qualify for the conditional exemption from certain otherwise-applicable labeling requirements have been modified for oxygen and medical air.

The rule is expected to provide a modest net social benefit (estimated benefits minus estimated costs) to society. Costs are attributed to coloring medical gas containers, complying with the 360° wraparound label requirement for portable cryogenic containers, and requiring gas-specific use outlet connections on portable cryogenic containers to be permanently attached to the valve body (e.g., by silver brazing) or attached to the valve body using a locking mechanism or other appropriate device so that only the manufacturer can readily remove or replace them. Using a standard 10 year time period, we estimate annualized costs to range between $0.18 million to $1.5 million using a 3 percent discount rate and $0.21 million to $1.8 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Benefits are attributed to reducing the probability that medical personnel accidentally administer the wrong gas to patients, resulting in serious injury or death. We estimate annualized benefits to approximately range between $0.8 million to $2.8 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and $2.5 million to $8.3 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Together we estimate annualized net benefits to range between $0.62 million to $1.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate, and $2.3 million to $6.5 million using a 7 percent discount rate.

FDA also examined the economic implications of the rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. The rule imposes new costs to small entities. We estimate the rule's one-time costs to roughly range between 0.0001 percent and 0.13 percent of average annual revenues.

The full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this final rule (Ref. 4) and at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

VII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(j) and (k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to review by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection provisions are shown in this section with an estimate of the third-party disclosure and recordkeeping burdens. Included in the estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing each collection of information.

Title: Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements.

Description: The final rule revises FDA's labeling and CGMP regulations to include new requirements for the label, color, and design of medical gas containers and closures. These requirements are intended to make the contents of medical gas containers more readily identifiable and to reduce the likelihood that the wrong gas will be connected to a medical gas supply system.

Description of Respondents: Persons and businesses, including small businesses and manufacturers, involved in the processing, manufacturing, transportation, handling, and administration of designated medical gases. FDA's database of establishments that manufacture medical gases includes about 2,500 such establishments.

We estimate the burden for the collection of information as follows:

Third-party disclosure: Table 1 shows the estimated one-time third-party disclosure burden. Upon implementation of the requirements under the final rule, we expect respondents will have realized the associated burden. In our subsequent PRA evaluation conducted in connection with requesting a renewal of OMB's approval of the information collection associated with this rule (assuming that initial approval occurs), we will adjust our estimate accordingly.

Table 1—Estimated One-Time Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 21 CFR sections Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • disclosures
  • Average burden
  • per disclosure
  • Total hours
    201.328(a)(1) and (2) and 211.94(e)(2) Portable Cryogenic Medical Gas Container Labels and Colors 2,500 14 35,000 0.10 (6 minutes) 3,500 201.328(b) and 211.94(e)(2) High-Pressure Medical Gas Cylinder Colors 2,500 984 2,460,000 0.10 (6 minutes) 246,000 Total 2,500 998 2,495,000 0.10 (6 minutes) 249,500 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    A gas listed at § 201.161(a) is exempt from certain labeling requirements if its labeling bears, among other things, a warning statement that conforms to § 201.161(a)(1). Section 201.161(a)(1)(i) specifies the content to be included in a warning statement for oxygen and § 201.161(a)(1)(ii) specifies the content to be included in a warning statement for nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrous oxide, and any medically appropriate combinations of any of the gases listed in § 201.161(a). FDA believes most medical gases are already labeled in a manner that complies with § 201.161(a) as finalized. Furthermore, because § 201.161(a) provides the warning statement content to be included in medical gas labeling, the inclusion of these warning statements on medical gas labeling is not considered a “collection of information” subject to review under the PRA. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) (providing that “the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included” within the definition of “collection of information”).

    Under § 201.328(a)(1), each portable cryogenic medical gas container must be conspicuously marked with a 360° wraparound label identifying its contents. The identity of the medical gas held in the container must be printed on the label in one of the following ways: Using lettering that appears in the standard color designated for the gas in § 201.328(c) and that is printed against a white background, or using lettering that appears in white against a background that is painted in the standard color for the gas as designated in § 201.328(c). The lettering for the name of the gas on the label must be at least 2 inches high; the name of the gas must be printed continuously around the label and be capable of being read around the entire container; the label must be on the sidewall of the container, as close to the top of the container as possible but below the top weld seam; and, if the shoulder portion of a portable cryogenic gas container is colored, the color used must be the standard color or colors designated in § 201.328(c) for the gas or gases held within the container.

    Under § 201.328(a)(2), the 360° wraparound label required in § 201.328(a)(1), or a separate label, must include in conspicuous lettering the phrase “For Medical Use,” “Medical Gas,” or some similar phrase that indicates the gas is for medical use. Finally, under § 211.94(e)(2), the wraparound label must be affixed to the container in a manner that does not interfere with other labeling and such that it is not susceptible to becoming worn or inadvertently detached during normal use, and the wraparound label must be reasonably resistant to fading, durable when exposed to atmospheric conditions, and not readily soluble in water.

    We estimate that there are approximately 35,000 portable cryogenic containers in medical gas service that are subject to the labeling requirements at § 201.328(a). As discussed in the Economic Analysis of Impacts, FDA conservatively estimates that all manufacturers will choose to comply with § 201.328(a) by removing any existing wraparound labels from all portable cryogenic containers and replacing them with wraparound labels that meet all of the requirements at § 201.328(a). Thus, on average, each manufacturer would need to add labels to (or re-label) approximately 14 containers (35,000 ÷ 2,500). FDA estimates that approximately 6 minutes would be required to remove any existing wraparound label and attach a new wraparound label to each container. Thus, the total burden third-party disclosure burden hours associated with § 201.328(a)(1) and (2) is approximately 3,500 hours (2,500 × 14 × 0.10 hours).

    Section 201.328(a)(1)(v) also provides that a portable cryogenic cylinder may only be colored in the color or colors designated in § 201.328(c) if the gas or gases held within the container correspond to that color or those colors. Alternatively, the container may be colored in a light-reflective color such as white (or some other color which is not an FDA-designated gas color), or simply not colored at all. Based on discussions with subject matter experts, we believe that few to no cryogenic containers will require recoloring as a result of this requirement, and therefore we estimate no third-party disclosure burden associated with this requirement.

    Under § 201.328(b), high-pressure medical gas cylinders must be colored on the shoulder with the colors designated in § 201.328(c) for the gas contained in the cylinder, and such colors must be visible when viewed from the top of the cylinder. Under § 211.94(e)(2), the materials used for coloring medical gas containers must be reasonably resistant to fading, durable when exposed to atmospheric conditions, and not readily soluble in water. Based on information contained in the Economic Analysis of Impacts (see Section VI), we estimate that as many as 10 percent of the estimated 24.6 million high-pressure cylinders in medical service will require coloring or recoloring to comply with § 201.328(b). Thus, on average, each manufacturer would need to color 984 containers (2.46 million ÷ 2,500). We conservatively estimate that it will take an average of 6 minutes to color a cylinder. Thus, the total third-party disclosure burden hours associated with § 201.328(b) is approximately 246,000 hours (2,500 × 984 × 0.10 hours).

    Recordkeeping: Table 2 shows the estimated annual recordkeeping burden associated with the information collection.

    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Number of
  • records per
  • recordkeeper
  • Total annual records Average burden per recordkeeping Total hours
    211.184 and 211.94(e)(1) Records Maintenance of Secure Gas Use Outlet Connection Requirement 2,500 0.7 1,750 0.033 (2 minutes) 58 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Section 211.94(e)(1) requires that portable cryogenic medical gas containers that are not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections must have gas-specific use outlet connections that are attached to the valve body so that they cannot be readily removed or replaced except by the manufacturer. A small portion of the existing inventory of portable cryogenic containers would need to be modified to comply with this requirement, and manufacturers must maintain records in accordance with § 211.184 for drug product containers. As discussed in the Economic Analysis of Impacts (see Section VI), FDA conservatively estimates that manufacturers will need to secure the gas use outlets of as many as 1,750 portable cryogenic containers to bring them into compliance with the final rule. As a result each manufacturer would incur annual recordkeeping under § 211.184 incident to bringing, on average, 0.7 containers into compliance with the secure gas use outlet connection requirement (1,750 ÷ 2,500). Consistent with our estimate in the proposed rule, this should require an average of 2 minutes (0.033 hours) per container. This results in an annual burden of 58 hours (2,500 × 0.7 × 0.033 hours) for 1,750 records.

    The information collection provisions of this final rule have been submitted to OMB for review, as required by section 3507(d) of the PRA. Before the effective date of this final rule, FDA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing OMB's decision to approve, modify, or disapprove the information collection provisions in this final rule. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    IX. Federalism

    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    X. References

    The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site address, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. CGA M-15, Standard for Appropriate and Effective Regulations for Medical Gases within 21 CFR parts 201, 2015, and 210/211 (Compressed Gas Association 2014, 1st ed), at pages 1, 14-15, 35. 2. CGA C-9, Standard Color Marking of Compressed Gas Containers for Medical Use (Compressed Gas Association 2013, 5th ed). 3. CGA Safety Bulletin SB-26, Cylinder Connections on Portable Liquid Cryogenic Cylinders (Compressed Gas Association 2014, 4th ed). 4. Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing Practice Requirements, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis, Docket No. FDA-2005-N-0343, available at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm. List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 201

    Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 211

    Drugs, Labeling, Laboratories, Packaging and containers, Prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 201 and 211 are amended as follows:

    PART 201—LABELING 1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 358, 360, 360b, 360gg-360ss, 371, 374, 379e; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264.

    2. Revise § 201.161 to read as follows:
    § 201.161 Medical gases.

    (a) Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, and nitrous oxide gases intended for drug use, and medically appropriate combinations of any of these gases intended for drug use, are exempted from the requirements of § 201.100(b)(2) and (3), and (c)(1), provided that, where applicable, the requirements of §§ 201.328 and 211.94(e)(2) of this chapter are met and the labeling bears, in addition to any other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the following:

    (1)(i) In the case of oxygen, a warning statement providing that uninterrupted use of high concentrations of oxygen over a long duration, without monitoring its effect on oxygen content of arterial blood, may be harmful; that oxygen should not be used on patients who have stopped breathing unless used in conjunction with resuscitative equipment; and, in the case of oxygen that may be provided without a prescription for use in the event of depressurization or other environmental oxygen deficiency, or for oxygen deficiency or for use in emergency resuscitation when administered by properly trained personnel, a warning statement providing that oxygen may be used for emergency use only when administered by properly trained personnel for oxygen deficiency and resuscitation, and that for all other medical applications a prescription is required.

    (ii) In the case of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrous oxide, and medically appropriate combinations of any of the gases listed in paragraph (a) of this section, a warning statement providing that the administration of the gas or gas combination (as applicable) may be hazardous or contraindicated; and that the gas or gas combination (as applicable) should be used only by or under the supervision of a licensed practitioner who is experienced in the use and administration of the gas or gas combination (as applicable) and is familiar with the indications, effects, dosages, methods, and frequency and duration of administration, and with the hazards, contraindications, and side effects and the precautions to be taken.

    (2) Any needed directions concerning the conditions for storage and warnings against the inherent dangers in the handling of the specific compressed gas.

    (b) [Reserved]

    3. Add new § 201.328 to read as follows:
    § 201.328 Labeling of medical gas containers.

    (a) Portable cryogenic medical gas containers. For the purposes of this section a “portable cryogenic medical gas container” is one that is capable of being transported and is intended to be attached to a medical gas supply system within a hospital, health care entity, nursing home, other facility, or home health care setting, or is a base unit used to fill small cryogenic gas containers for use by individual patients. The term does not include cryogenic containers that are not designed to be connected to a medical gas supply system, e.g., tank trucks, trailers, rail cars, or small cryogenic gas containers for use by individual patients (including portable liquid oxygen units as defined at § 868.5655 of this chapter).

    (1) Each portable cryogenic medical gas container must be conspicuously marked with a 360° wraparound label identifying its contents. Such label must meet the requirements of § 211.94(e)(2) of this chapter and the following additional requirements.

    (i) If the container holds a single gas, the name of the gas held in the container must be printed on the label in one of the following ways:

    (A) Using lettering that appears in the color designated for the gas in paragraph (c) of this section and that is printed against a white background, or

    (B) Using lettering that appears in white against a background that is painted in the color for the gas designated in paragraph (c) of this section.

    (ii) The lettering for the name of the gas on the label must be at least 2 inches high.

    (iii) The name of the gas must be printed continuously around the label and be capable of being read around the entire container.

    (iv) The label must be on the sidewall of the container, as close to the top of the container as possible but below the top weld seam.

    (v) A portable cryogenic medical gas container may only be colored in the color or colors designated in paragraph (c) of this section if the gas or gases held within the container correspond to that color or those colors.

    (2) A label on the container (either the 360° wraparound label required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section or a separate label) must include, in conspicuous lettering, the phrase “For Medical Use”, “Medical Gas,” or some similar phrase that indicates the gas is for medical use.

    (b) High-pressure medical gas cylinders. Each high-pressure medical gas cylinder must be colored on the shoulder portion of the cylinder in the color or colors designated in paragraph (c) of this section. The color or colors must be visible when viewed from the top of cylinder.

    (c) Medical gas colors. The colors required to identify medical gases under paragraph (a) and (b) of this section are:

    Medical gas Color Medical Air Yellow. Carbon Dioxide Gray. Helium Brown. Nitrogen Black. Nitrous Oxide Blue. Oxygen Green. Mixture or Blend Colors corresponding to each component gas.
    PART 211—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR FINISHED PHARMACEUTICALS 4. The authority citation for part 211 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, 360b, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263a, 264.

    5. Amend § 211.94 by adding new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 211.94 Drug product containers and closures.

    (e) Medical gas containers and closures must meet the following requirements—(1) Gas-specific use outlet connections. Portable cryogenic medical gas containers that are not manufactured with permanent gas use outlet connections (e.g., those that have been silver-brazed) must have gas-specific use outlet connections that are attached to the valve body so that they cannot be readily removed or replaced (without making the valve inoperable and preventing the containers' use) except by the manufacturer. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “manufacturer” includes any individual or firm that fills high-pressure medical gas cylinders or cryogenic medical gas containers. For the purposes of this section, a “portable cryogenic medical gas container” is one that is capable of being transported and is intended to be attached to a medical gas supply system within a hospital, health care entity, nursing home, other facility, or home health care setting, or is a base unit used to fill small cryogenic gas containers for use by individual patients. The term does not include cryogenic containers that are not designed to be connected to a medical gas supply system, e.g., tank trucks, trailers, rail cars, or small cryogenic gas containers for use by individual patients (including portable liquid oxygen units as defined at § 868.5655 of this chapter).

    (2) Label and coloring requirements. The labeling specified at § 201.328(a) of this chapter must be affixed to the container in a manner that does not interfere with other labeling and such that it is not susceptible to becoming worn or inadvertently detached during normal use. Each such label as well as materials used for coloring medical gas containers must be reasonably resistant to fading, durable when exposed to atmospheric conditions, and not readily soluble in water.

    6. Amend § 211.125 by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 211.125 Labeling issuance.

    (c) * * * Labeling reconciliation is also waived for 360° wraparound labels on portable cryogenic medical gas containers.

    Dated: November 15, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27838 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 411, 414, 417, 422, 423, 424, 425, and 460 [CMS-1654-CN2] RIN 0938-AS81 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects technical errors in the final rule that was placed on public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register on November 2, 2016 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on November 15, 2016. That rule is entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Bid Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Loss Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements.”

    DATES:

    This correcting document is effective January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Plumb, (410) 786-4481, Gaysha Brooks, (410) 786-9649, or Annette Brewer (410) 786-6580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In FR Doc 2016-26668, that was placed on public inspection at the Office of the Federal Register on November 2, 2016 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on November 15, 2016, there were technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.

    II. Summary of Errors in the Regulations Text

    In the CY 2017 PFS final rule, we inadvertently omitted or included language in § 410.79(b), (c)(1)(ii) and (iv), (c)(2)(i) and § 424.59(a)(1) and (5), (b)(4)(i), and (e)(2)(i).

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest; and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it.

    In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects technical errors in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were proposed subject to notice and comment procedures in the CY 2017 PFS final rule. As a result, the correction made through this correcting document is intended to resolve inadvertent errors so that the rule accurately reflects the policies in the final rule.

    Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2017 PFS final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects the public comment period. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary, because we are not making any substantive revisions to the final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the policies in the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

    IV. Correction of Errors in the Regulations Text

    In FR Doc. 16-26668 appearing on page 80170 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, November 16, 2016, the following corrections are made:

    1. On pages 80552 and 80553, correct § 410.79 by— a. In paragraph (b): i. Removing the definition of “Evaluation weight”; ii. Revising the definitions of “MDPP supplier”, “Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP)”, and “Required minimum weight loss”; iii. In the definition of “National Diabetes Prevention Program, removing “(DPP)” and adding in its place the term “(National DPP) ”; and b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv) and (c)(2)(i).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 410.79 Medicare diabetes prevention program expanded model: Conditions of coverage.

    (b) * * *

    MDPP supplier refers to an entity that has enrolled in Medicare to furnish MDPP services.

    Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) refers to a model test expanded under section 1115A(c) of the Act that makes MDPP services available to MDPP eligible beneficiaries.

    Required minimum weight loss refers to the percentage by which the beneficiary's updated weight is less than the baseline weight. The required minimum weight loss percentage is 5 percent.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) Have as of the date of attendance at the first core session a body mass index (BMI) of at least 25 if not self-identified as Asian or a BMI of at least 23 if self-identified as Asian.

    (iv) Have no previous diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes (other than gestational diabetes).

    (2) * * *

    (i) Core sessions and core maintenance sessions. MDPP suppliers must furnish to MDPP eligible beneficiaries the MDPP core benefit. Sixteen core sessions must be furnished at least a week apart over the first 6 months. At least one core maintenance session must be furnished in each of the second 6 months. All core sessions and core maintenance sessions must have a duration of approximately one hour. MDPP suppliers must address at least 16 different curriculum topics in the core sessions and at least 6 different curriculum topics in the core maintenance sessions.

    2. On page 80558, correct § 424.59 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (5), (b)(4)(i), and (e)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 424.59 Requirements for Medicare diabetes prevention program suppliers.

    (a) * * *

    (1) At the time of enrollment has full CDC DPRP recognition.

    (5) Submits a roster of all coaches who will be furnishing MDPP services on the entity's behalf that includes the coaches' first and last names, SSN, and NPI.

    (b) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) Has attended one, four or nine core sessions, or

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Become eligible to bill for MDPP services again if it meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and enrolls again in Medicare as an MDPP supplier subject to paragraph (a) of this section.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27733 Filed 11-15-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 151211999-6343-02] RIN 0648-XF002 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Georges Bank Cod Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure and Possession and Trip Limit Reductions for the Common Pool Fishery AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; area closure and inseason adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    This action closes the Georges Bank Cod Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area to Northeast multispecies common pool vessels and adjusts the Georges Bank cod possession and trip limit for common pool vessels for the remainder of Trimester 2, through December 31, 2016. The common pool fishery is projected to catch 90 percent of its Trimester 2 quota for Georges Bank cod. The closure and possession and trip limit reductions are intended to prevent an overage of the common pool's quota for this stock.

    DATES:

    This action is effective November 15, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Liz Sullivan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal regulations at 50 CFR 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close a common pool Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching that stock for the remainder of the trimester.

    As of November 5, 2016, the common pool fishery has caught approximately 87 percent of the Trimester 2 TAC (4.2 mt) for Georges Bank (GB) cod. We project that 90 percent of the Trimester 2 TAC was caught by November 7.

    Effective November 15, 2016, the GB Cod Trimester TAC Area is closed for the remainder of Trimester 2, through December 31, 2016, to all common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear, sink gillnet gear, and longline/hook gear. The GB Cod Trimester TAC Area consists of statistical areas 521, 522, 525, and 561. The area reopens at the beginning of Trimester 3 on January 1, 2017.

    The intent of the trimester TAC area closure is to close the area where 90 percent of the catch of the stock has occurred. However, data indicate that common pool vessels have caught approximately 35 percent of the total catch in Trimester 2 from outside the statistical areas that will be affected by the closure described above. Federal regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels to prevent the overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. Therefore, the possession and trip limits for GB cod, are reduced as shown in Table 1, effective November 15, 2016, through December 31, 2016. This is intended to prevent the common pool from exceeding its sub-annual catch limit, but still allow for landing incidental catch of GB cod in areas not affected by the closure.

    On January 1, 2017, common pool possession and trip limits for GB cod will return to the initial limits set by Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

    Table 1—Reduced Common Pool Possession and Trip Limits for GB Cod Permit Initial 2016 limits Reduced limits A DAS * (outside of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area) 500 lb per DAS up to 2,500 lb per trip 25 lb per DAS up to 50 lb per trip. A DAS (Eastern U.S./Canada Area) 100 lb per DAS up to 500 lb per trip 25 lb per DAS up to 50 lb per trip. A DAS (Special Access Programs) 1,000 lb per trip 50 lb per trip. Handgear A 300 lb per trip 25 lb per trip. Handgear B 25 lb per trip 25 lb per trip (unchanged). Regular B DAS Program 100 lb per DAS up to 1,000 lb per trip 25 lb per DAS up to 50 lb per trip. * Day-at-sea (DAS).

    If a vessel declared its trip through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) or the interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to November 15, 2016, it may complete its trip within the Trimester TAC Area. Additionally, such vessels are not subject to the new possession and trip limits for that trip. A vessel that has set gillnet gear prior to November 15, 2016, may complete its trip by hauling such gear.

    Any overage of the Trimester 1 or 2 TACs must be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. Any uncaught portion of the Trimester 1 and Trimester 2 TACs is carried over into the next trimester. If the common pool fishery exceeds its sub-ACL for the 2016 fishing year, the overage must be deducted from the common pool's sub-ACL for fishing year 2017. However, any uncaught portion of the common pool's sub-ACL may not be carried over into the following fishing year.

    Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery are on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/MultiMonReports.htm. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information, and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

    Regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information only recently became available indicating that the common pool fishery caught 90 percent of its Trimester 2 TAC for GB cod by November 7, 2016. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, prevents the immediate closure of the GB Cod Trimester 2 TAC Area and reduction of the common pool's GB cod possession and trip limits. Delaying the effective date of a closure and possession and trip limit reduction increases the likelihood that the common pool fishery will exceed its quota of GB cod to the detriment of this stock, which could undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies FMP.

    Additionally, an overage of the common pool quota could cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery as a result of overage paybacks in a future trimester or fishing year.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 15, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27826 Filed 11-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 130919816-4205-02] RIN 0648-XF044 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2016 Management Area 1B Directed Fishery Closure AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; directed fishery closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is closing the directed herring fishery in management Area 1B, limiting catch from that area to 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per trip and prohibiting landing more than once per calendar day, because it projects that 92 percent of the 2016 annual seasonal catch limit for that area will have been caught by the effective date. This action is necessary to comply with the regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan and is intended to prevent over harvest of herring in Area 1B.

    DATES:

    Effective 0001 hr local time, November 18, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Luers, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8457.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The reader can find regulations governing the herring fishery at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations require annual specification of the overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, annual catch limit (ACL), optimum yield, domestic harvest and processing, U.S. at-sea processing, border transfer, and sub-ACLs for each management area. The 2016 Domestic Annual Harvest is 103,045 metric tons (mt); the 2016 sub-ACL allocated to Area 1B is 4,600 mt, and 138 mt of the Area 1B sub-ACL is set aside for research (78 FR 61828, October 4, 2013). The 2016 Area 1B sub-ACL was decreased to 2,941 mt to account for the 1,521 mt overage in 2014 catch. For management Area 1B, the catch of sub-ACL is currently allocated to the seasonal period from May 1 through December 31. There is no catch currently allocated to the seasonal period from January 1 through April 30. Therefore, under current regulations, vessels are prohibited from fishing for herring in or from Area 1B during the January 1 through April 30 period.

    The regulations at § 648.201 require that when the NMFS Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region (Regional Administrator) projects herring catch will reach 92 percent of the sub-ACL allocated in any of the four management areas designated in the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP), NMFS will prohibit herring vessel permit holders from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip and landing more than once per calendar day in or from the specified management area for the remainder of the directed fishery closure period. The Regional Administrator monitors the herring fishery catch in each of the management areas based on dealer reports, state data, and other available information. NMFS publishes notification in the Federal Register of the date that the catch is projected to reach 92 percent of the management area sub-ACL, and of the closure of the directed fishery and a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) trip possession limit in the management area for the remainder of the seasonal closure period. Vessels that have entered port before the closure date may offload and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from Area 1B, from that trip. During the directed fishery closure, vessels may transit Area 1B with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board only under the conditions specified below.

    The Regional Administrator has determined, based on dealer reports and other available information, that the herring fleet will catch 92 percent of the total herring sub-ACL allocated to Area 1B for the 2016 seasonal period from May 1 through December 31, 2016, by November 18, 2016. Therefore, effective 0001 hr local time, November 18, 2016, federally permitted vessels may not fish for, catch, possess, transfer, or land more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip and land more than once per calendar day, in or from Area 1B through December 31, 2016, except that vessels that have entered port before 0001 hr on November 18, 2016, may offload and sell more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from Area 1B from that trip after the closure. During the directed fishery closure, November 18, 2016, through December 31, 2016, a vessel may transit through Area 1B with more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring on board, provided the vessel did not catch more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring in Area 1B and its fishing gear is not available for immediate use as defined by § 648.2. Effective 0001 hr, November 18, 2016, federally permitted dealers may not receive herring from federally permitted herring vessels that harvest more than 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring from Area 1B through 2400 hr local time, December 31, 2016, unless it is from a trip landed by a vessel that entered port before 0001 hr on November 18, 2016. Under current regulations during the seasonal period from January 1, 2017, through April 30, 2017, vessels are prohibited from fishing for, catching, possessing, transferring, or landing herring from Area 1B during this seasonal period. Vessels may transit area 1B with herring on board provided such herring were caught in an area or areas with sub-ACL available and that all fishing gear is stowed and not available for immediate use as defined in § 648.2, and the vessel is issued a permit that authorizes the amount of herring on board for the area where the herring was harvested. Beginning on May 1, 2017, the 2017 allocation for Area 1B is expected to become available.

    Classification

    This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    NMFS finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. The herring fishery opened for the 2016 fishing year on January 1, 2016, and Management Area 1B opened on May 1, 2016. Data indicating the herring fleet will have landed at least 92 percent of the 2016 sub-ACL allocated to Area 1B have only recently become available. Landings data is updated on a weekly basis, and NMFS monitors catch data on a daily basis as catch increases toward the limit for the area. Further, high-volume catch and landings in this fishery increase total catch relative to the sub-ACL quickly. This action is a required response to that recently available data and closes the directed herring fishery and imposes a 2,000-lb (907.2-kg) possession limit for Management Area 1B through December 31, 2016, under current regulations. The regulations at § 648.201(a) require such action to ensure that herring vessels do not exceed the 2016 sub-ACL allocated to Area 1B. If implementation of this closure is delayed to solicit prior public comment, the sub-ACL for Area 1B for this fishing year may be exceeded, thereby undermining the conservation objectives of the FMP. If sub-ACLs are exceeded, the excess must also be deducted from a future sub-ACL and would reduce future fishing opportunities. Also, the public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this process when these provisions were put in place. Based on these considerations, NMFS further finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period for the reasons stated above.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 15, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27833 Filed 11-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 223 Friday, November 18, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 835 [Docket No. AU-RM-16-ORP] RIN 1992-AA51 Occupational Radiation Protection AGENCY:

    Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend the values listed in two appendices to its current occupational radiation protection regulations. The proposed amendment to appendix C would correct the derived air concentration value for any single radionuclide not listed in the appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours, adjusted for an 8-hr work day. The proposed amendments to appendix E would correct the activity information of two radionuclides, Rh-102 and Rh-102m.

    DATES:

    The comment period for this proposed rule will end on December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number AU-RM-16-ORP, and/or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1992-AA51 in one of four ways (please select only one of the ways listed):

    1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected] Include docket number AU-RM-16-ORP and/or RIN 1992-AA51 in the subject line of the email. Please include the full body of your comments in the text of the message or as an attachment. If you have additional information such as studies or journal articles and cannot attach them to your electronic submission, please send them on a CD or USB flash drive to the address listed in paragraph 4. The additional material must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject, and docket number AU-RM-16-ORP.

    3. Mail: Address written comments to James Dillard, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Mailstop AU-11, Docket Number AU-RM-16-ORP, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 (due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt). If possible, please submit all items on a CD or USB flash drive, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: James Dillard, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874. Telephone 301-903-1165. If possible, please submit all items on a CD or USB flash drive, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see Section IV of this document (Public Participation).

    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title10/10cfr835_main_02.tpl. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See Section IV of this document (Public Participation) for further information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Dillard, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Mailstop AU-11, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 301-903-1165. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Discussion of Proposed Amendments A. Appendix C—Derived Air Concentration (DAC) for Workers From External Exposure During Immersion in a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive Material B. Appendix E—Values for Establishing Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Radioactive Material Posting and Labeling Requirements III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act E. Review Under Executive Order 12988 F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under Executive Order 13175 H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 IV. Public Participation V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary. I. Background

    The requirements in title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 835 (10 CFR part 835), Occupational Radiation Protection, are designed to protect the health and safety of individuals from ionizing radiation resulting from the conduct of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities. One situation that DOE's regulations address is the exposure of workers to radioactive material dispersed in the air. Based on calculations involving doses to the organs of the body, levels of contamination in the air that will not cause the dose limits for workers to be exceeded are established for specified radionuclides. These values are provided in appendix C of part 835. On April 13, 2011, the Department published updated Derived Air Concentration (DAC) values in appendix C for determining radiation dose from inhaled radioactive material (76 FR 20489). The updated dose conversion factors were based on an 8 hour work day exposure time instead of the previously assumed 24 hour calendar day exposure, which is consistent with other occupational scenarios, such as those used in developing appendix A DACs. In that update, the DAC values for radionuclides not listed in the appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours were inadvertently not revised for the 8 hour work day exposure time. The proposed amendment to appendix C would provide the correct DAC values for this group of radioactive materials.

    Title 10 CFR part 835 appendix E values were developed to ensure the proper accountability of sealed radioactive sources, as well as radioactive material posting and labeling requirements (63 FR 59662, November 4, 1998). DOE most recently amended the values of appendix E to part 835 on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31904), using the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 60 methodology (ref. 1) and the same exposure scenarios discussed in a 1998 amendment to 10 CFR part 835 (63 FR 59662, November 4, 1998). The values were based on the more limiting of the quantity of radioactive material which results in either an external or internal whole body dose, from either inhalation or ingestion, of 100 millirems. However, the final rule incorrectly listed values for two radionuclides. This proposed amendment to appendix E would provide the correct activity values for these two radionuclides (Rh-102 and Rh-102m), calculated from internal exposure scenario derived from ICRP Publication 119 (ref. 2).

    II. Discussion of Proposed Amendments

    A. Appendix C—Derived Air Concentration (DAC) for Workers from External Exposure During Immersion in a Cloud of Airborne Radioactive Material. The proposed amendment would provide a correction to the derived air concentration value for any single radionuclide not listed in the Appendix C table with a decay mode other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission and with radioactive half-life less than two hours to 1E-06 µCi/mL (7E+04 Bq/m3).

    B. Appendix E—Values for Establishing Sealed Radioactive Source Accountability and Radioactive Material Posting and Labeling Requirements. The proposed amendment would correct the activity for Rh-102 to 6.4E+05 µCi and the activity from Rh-102m to 3.0E+05 µCi.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This regulatory action has been determined not to be “not significant” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that a Federal agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).

    This proposed rule would amend DOE requirements for nuclear safety and occupational radiation protection at DOE sites. The requirements of part 835 are primarily implemented by contractors who conduct work at DOE facilities. DOE considered whether these contractors are “small businesses” as the term is defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)). The Regulatory Flexibility Act's definition incorporates the definition of small business concerns in the Small Business Act, which the Small Business Administration (SBA) has developed through size standards in 13 CFR part 121. The DOE contractors subject to this rule exceed the SBA's size standards for small businesses. In addition, DOE expects that any potential economic impact of this rule would be negligible because DOE activities are conducted by contractors who are reimbursed through their contracts with DOE for the costs of complying with DOE nuclear safety and radiation protection requirements, including the costs of complying with the proposed rule. For these reasons, DOE certifies that this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the SBA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls into a class of actions that would not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule amends existing regulations without changing the potential environmental effect of the regulations being amended, and, therefore, is covered under the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    E. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation; (5) defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of the standards. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    G. Review Under Executive Order 13175

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) on “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that has “tribal” implications and imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. DOE has determined that the proposed rule would not have such effects and concluded that Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency regulation that may result in the expenditure by states, tribal, or local governments, on the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year. The Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officials of state, tribal, or local governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity to provide timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. DOE has determined that the proposed rule published does not contain any Federal mandates affecting small governments, so these requirements do not apply.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule that may affect family well-being. The proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB.

    OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    IV. Public Participation Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public hearings, but no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested individuals are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting data, views, or arguments with respect to this proposed rule using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. To help the Department review the submitted comments, commenters are requested to reference the paragraph(s), e.g., § 835.3(a), to which they refer where possible.

    1. Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE's Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below.

    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting them. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

    2. Submitting comments via email, mail or hand delivery/courier. Comments and documents submitted via email, mail, or hand delivery/courier, also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD or USB flash drive, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

    3. Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, anyone submitting information or data he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, or postal mail two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “NO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidentiality of the information and treat it accordingly. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

    4. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

    Appendix A—References 1. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), 1994. Dose Coefficients for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publication 68. Ann. ICRP 24 (4). 2. ICRP, 2012. Corrigenda to ICRP Publication 119: Compendium of Dose Coefficients based on ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 41 (suppl.). V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 835

    Federal buildings and facilities, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear safety, Occupational safety and health, Radiation protection, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2016. Matthew B. Moury, Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Energy proposes to amend part 835 of chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

    PART 835—OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION PROTECTION 1. The authority citation for part 835 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201, 7191, 50 U.S.C. 2410.

    Appendix C to Part 835—[Amended] 2. At the end of the table, in appendix C, the last sentence is amended by removing “6 E-06 μCi/mL (2 E+04Bq/m3)” and adding in its place “1 E-06 µCi/mL (7 E+04 Bq/m3)”. Appendix E to Part 835—[Amended] 3. Appendix E is amended by removing the activity value in the second column for: a. Rh-102, value of “3.0E+05” and adding in its place “6.4E+05”; and b. Rh-102m, value of “6.4E+05” and adding in its place “3.0E+05”.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27510 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-145-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on an airplane during a tension check and a determination that Model 36A airplanes were not included in AD 2005-13-36, which addresses this issue for other Learjet Inc. airplanes. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone 316-946-2000; fax 316-946-2220; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Donald Ristow, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4120; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-145-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We received a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on a Learjet Inc. Model 35A (C-21A) airplane when the cable underwent a tension check while being installed. Further investigation showed that an over-sized ball was swaged onto the cable during manufacture. Swaging an over-sized ball onto a cable allows excess material into the swaging die, which causes the ball to over-swage and then sever the cable strands. This condition, if not corrected, could result in severe weakening of the aileron cable, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    The subject area on Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes is identical to that on the affected Model 35A (C-21A) airplane. Therefore, Model 36A airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.

    We previously issued AD 2005-13-36, Amendment 39-14173 (70 FR 38578, July 5, 2005) (“AD 2005-13-36”), for Learjet Inc. Model 23, 24, 24A, 24B, 24B-A, 24C, 24D, 24D-A, 24E, 24F, 24F-A, 25, 25A, 25B, 25C, 25D, 25F, 28, 29, 31, 31A, 35, 35A (C-21A), and 36 airplanes. Model 36A airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability of that AD. The applicability of AD 2005-13-36 referred to Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002, for Model 35, 35A (C-21A), and 36 airplanes. However, Model 36A airplanes are also identified in that service information.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and replacement of defective cables. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as described in “Differences between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002, recommends that operators accomplish the actions within 10 flight hours after receipt. This proposed AD would require that operators accomplish the actions within 100 flight hours, or 90 days after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first. We find that the proposed compliance time addresses the unsafe condition soon enough to maintain an adequate level of safety for the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this proposed AD we considered the degree of urgency associated with addressing the unsafe condition, and the maximum interval of time allowable for all affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 21 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $1,785

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cable Replacement 1 Up to 48 work-hours × $85 per hour = up to $4,080 1 Up to $2,020 1 Up to $6,100. 1 These costs assume replacement of all 5 cables.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Learjet Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9388; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-145-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 36A airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an aileron cable failed on an airplane during a tension check. We are issuing this AD to prevent severe weakening of the aileron cable, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Inspection

    Within 100 flight hours or 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the center ball of the aileron control cables for a defective swage, and before further flight, replace any damaged or defective cable with a new cable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002. For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is: An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be required.

    (h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an aileron control cable unless it has been inspected in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) No Reporting or Parts Return Requirement

    Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A35/36-27-42, dated December 23, 2002, has procedures for submitting a report showing compliance and for returning any discrepant parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not include those requirements.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Donald Ristow, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Propulsion Branch, ACE-116W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316-946-4120; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone 316-946-2000; fax 316-946-2220; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27532 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9391; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-129-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a crack in a certain body station (BS) frame inboard chord during supplemental structural inspection document (SSID) inspections. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for any crack at the frame inboard chords, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9391.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9391; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM 120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9391; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-129-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating a crack of approximately 1.00 inch was found in the BS 616 frame inboard chord during SSID inspections. The crack was located at the lowest fastener hole of the inboard chord inboard strap below stringer S-11R. The airplane had accumulated 75,584 total flight hours and 63,570 total flight cycles. Cracking in the inboard chord is the result of fatigue caused by cyclic pressurization of the fuselage. This condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure of the frame and possible rapid decompression.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed and HFEC inspections for cracking at the frame inboard chords, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9391.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 400 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Detailed and HFEC Inspections 8 work-hours × $85 per hour = $680 per inspection cycle $0 $680 per inspection cycle $272,000 per inspection cycle.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9391; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-129-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack in the body station (BS) 616 frame inboard chord during supplemental structural inspection document (SSID) inspections; the crack was located at the lowest fastener hole of the inboard chord inboard strap below stringer S-11R. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any crack in the inboard chord of the BS 616 frame below stringers S-11L or S-11R, which could result in structural failure of the frame and possible rapid decompression.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Detailed and High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, at the applicable times specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016: Do detailed and HFEC inspections for any crack at the frame inboard chords, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the time specified in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016.

    (h) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.

    (i) Service Information Exceptions

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1366, dated May 17, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or sub-step. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM 120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5324; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27531 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9392; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-003-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems fusible plugs installed on emergency evacuation equipment for various transport category airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected fusible plugs activated (vented gas) below the rated temperature. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the fusible plugs to determine the part number, and lot number and replacement of all affected fusible plugs. We are proposing this AD to prevent the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9392; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-9392; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-003-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We have received reports indicating that certain fusible plugs installed on emergency evacuation equipment activated below the rated temperature. Fusible plugs are safety devices that vent air from charged inflation systems if the inflation systems encounter excessive temperatures. Tests conducted on affected fusible plugs revealed that the plugs activated (vented gas) between 130 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) instead of the rated temperature of 174 °F. The affected fusible plugs shipped from Air Cruisers, which is a component of Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems, from October 1, 2008, through October 1, 2009, and have part number (P/N) B13984-3, stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22. Currently there are 158 affected fusible plugs that have not been accounted for. Affected fusible plugs could be installed on emergency evacuation equipment, which includes all inflation valves, reservoir and valve assemblies, and evacuation slides, slides/rafts and liferafts. Activation of the fusible plugs vents all of the gas from the inflation system reservoir (inflation bottle), rendering the evacuation system unusable.

    Related Service Information

    We reviewed Air Cruisers Service Information Letter 25-246, Rev. No. 1, dated February 21, 2014. The service information provides information regarding affected fusible plugs and provides guidance on fusible plug replacement.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require an inspection of the fusible plugs to determine the part number and lot number, and replacement of all affected fusible plugs. This proposed AD also would require, for affected part and lot numbers only, sending the part number identification results to Air Cruisers.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 3,384 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Determining part number 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $287,640

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Replacing 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 Not available $85 Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 85

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems: Docket No. FAA-2016-9392; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-003-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 3, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Zodiac Aero Evacuation Systems fusible plugs installed on emergency evacuation equipment. These affected fusible plugs might be installed on the emergency evacuation equipment of various transport airplanes, certificated in any category, including, but not limited to, the airplanes of manufacturers specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus.

    (2) The Boeing Company.

    (3) BAE Systems (Operations) Limited.

    (4) Fokker Services B.V.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that affected fusible plugs activated (vented gas) below the rated temperature. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fusible plugs that might activate below the rated temperature, which renders the evacuation system unusable.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Fusible Plug Identification, and Replacement

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Do an inspection to determine the part number and lot number of the fusible plugs installed in the emergency evacuation equipment (including all inflation valves, reservoir and valve assemblies, and evacuation slides, slides/rafts and liferafts). A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable to make this determination if the part number and lot number of the fusible plugs can be conclusively determined from that review. If any fusible plug has part number (P/N) B13984-3, stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22: Before further flight, replace the fusible plug with a new part.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    Guidance can be found in the applicable component maintenance manual for the replacement. In addition, Air Cruisers Service Information Letter 25-246, Rev. No. 1, dated February 21, 2014, provides information regarding affected fusible plugs and guidance on the replacement.

    (h) Reporting

    If any fusible plug having P/N B13984-3, stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22, is identified during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, report the finding to Air Cruisers, Attention Kelly Schmidt, 1747 State Route 34, Wall Township, NJ 07727-3935; fax: 732-681-9163; email: [email protected] Include the quantity of fusible plugs scrapped and the name of the company or service center.

    (1) If any affected fusible plug was identified on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the part number identification.

    (2) If any affected fusible plug was identified before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane any fusible plug having P/N B13984-3, stamped with Lot PA-21 or PA-22.

    (j) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27626 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 60, 70, and 71 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0355; FRL-9955-14-OAR] RIN 2060-AS62 Revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Permitting Regulations and Establishment of a Significant Emissions Rate (SER) for GHG Emissions Under the PSD Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 26, 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule to revise provisions in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V permitting regulations applicable to greenhouse gases (GHGs) to fully conform with recent court decisions. The EPA is extending the comment period on this proposed rule that was scheduled to close on December 2, 2016. The EPA received a letter requesting the extension of the proposed rule public comment period to allow the public additional time to review the rule and supporting documentation.

    DATES:

    The public comment period on the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2016 (81 FR 68110), is being extended. Written comments must be received on or before December 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0355, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information on this action, contact Jessica Montañez, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-3407; fax number (919) 541-5509; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    After considering the request to extend the public comment period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period by 2 weeks, until December 16, 2016. This extension will ensure that the public has additional time to review the proposed rule and its supporting documents.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Mary Henigin, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27670 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0521; FRL-9955-31-Region 8] Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Wyoming AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on the portions of six submissions from the State of Wyoming that are intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These submissions address the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of four elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states; and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and proposing to approve prong 1 and disapprove prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve interstate transport prong 4 for the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0521 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. (303) 312-7104, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume, date, and page number);

    • Follow directions and organize your comments;

    • Explain why you agree or disagree;

    • Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    II. Background

    On September 21, 2006, the EPA revised the primary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). 71 FR 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006). On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). 73 FR 16436 (Mar. 27, 2008). On October 15, 2008, the EPA revised the level of the primary and secondary Pb NAAQS to 0.15 μg/m3. 73 FR 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008). On January 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb) while retaining the annual standard of 53 ppb. 75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010). The secondary NO2 NAAQS remains unchanged at 53 ppb. On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary 1-hour SO2 standard at 75 ppb. 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Finally, on December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 μg/m3 and retaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a level of 35 μg/m3. 78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013).

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these provisions is referred to as the “infrastructure” SIP. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances.

    CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interfere with maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).

    The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Department or WDEQ) submitted the following: A certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on August 19, 2011; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Pb SIP on October 12, 2011; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on February 6, 2014; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 24, 2014; a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on March 6, 2015; and a certification of Wyoming's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 on June 24, 2016.

    Each of these infrastructure certifications addressed all of the infrastructure elements including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), referred to as infrastructure element (D).1 In this action, we are only addressing element (D) prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb certification, 2008 ozone certification and 2010 NO2 certification, and prong 4 from the 2010 SO2 and 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 certifications. All other infrastructure elements from these certifications, including element (D) prong 3 (prevent significant deterioration of air quality), have been or will be addressed in separate actions.

    1 For discussion of other infrastructure elements, see EPA's “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),” September 13, 2013.

    III. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    In its February 6, 2014 infrastructure submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, WDEQ addressed 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 by presenting ambient monitoring and wind rose data, among other information,2 to determine that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. WDEQ focused its analysis on nearby designated nonattainment areas, and in particular, on a nonattainment area in and around Denver, Colorado.3 Specifically, WDEQ pointed to the attaining ozone data at a Cheyenne, Wyoming monitor, which is the monitor in Wyoming that is geographically located closest to the Denver, Colorado 2008 ozone nonattainment area. WDEQ also provided wind rose data in Cheyenne, Wyoming, which showed that prevailing winds in Cheyenne came from the west and northwest, which WDEQ asserts indicates the transport of air pollutants is away from the Denver nonattainment area, which is located 30 miles south of the southeastern Wyoming border. WDEQ concludes that the combination of low ozone monitor values in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and prevailing winds provided evidence that emissions from Wyoming do not significantly influence air quality in the Denver ozone nonattainment area. WDEQ also noted that downwind states Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota did not contain nonattainment areas to which Wyoming could significantly contribute. Accordingly, WDEQ concludes that emissions from Wyoming do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

    2 The State also provided census data and geographic information to support their assertion regarding prongs 1 and 2 in the February 6, 2014 submittal.

    3 The Denver area, including 7 full counties and 2 partial counties, was designated as a marginal nonattainment area in a final action dated May 21, 2012. See 77 FR 30110.

    WDEQ's approach to evaluating its compliance with the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is incomplete for two reasons. First, transported emissions may cause an area to measure exceedances of the standard even if that area is not formally designated nonattainment by the EPA. While WDEQ considered its potential impact to the Denver nonattainment area based on general wind patterns, the State did not provide analysis showing that it did not contribute to ozone levels in the Denver nonattainment area on the particular days with measured exceedances. Moreover, while the State considered whether there were designated nonattainment areas in four of several nearby states, WDEQ did not evaluate whether it contributed to ozone levels elsewhere in Colorado or in other nearby states (e.g., in Utah) on the days with measured exceedances, whether or not those exceedances occurred in designated nonattainment areas. The EPA has routinely interpreted the obligation to prohibit emissions that “significantly contribute to nonattainment” of the NAAQS in downwind states to be independent of formal designations because exceedances can happen in any area. 4 Thus, WDEQ did not fully evaluate whether emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment in other states as required by prong 1 of element (D).

    4See, e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule, 70 FR 25162, 25265 (May 12, 2005) (“As to impacts, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) refers only to prevention of `nonattainment' in other States, not to prevention of nonattainment in designated nonattainment areas or any similar formulation requiring that designations for downwind nonattainment areas must first have occurred.”); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208, 48211 (Aug. 8, 2011) (evaluating nonattainment and maintenance concerns based on modeled projections); Brief for Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 23-24, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 1532516 (defending the EPA's identification of air quality problems in CSAPR independent of area designations). Cf. Final Response to Petition from New Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From the Portland Generating Station, 76 FR 69052 (Nov. 7, 2011) (finding facility in violation of the prohibitions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to issuance of designations for that standard).

    Second, WDEQ's submission does not provide any technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). In remanding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the EPA in North Carolina v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must give the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “independent significance” by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment, considering historic variability.5 Wyoming does not give the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance because its analysis did not evaluate the potential impact of Wyoming emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality.

    5 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (holding that the EPA must give “independent significance” to each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).

    The EPA developed technical information and a related analysis to assist states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and used this technical analysis to support the recently finalized Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (“CSAPR Update”).6 As explained below, this analysis supports the conclusions of WDEQ's analysis for prong 1 and contradicts the conclusions of WDEQ's analysis regarding prong 2.

    6 81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016).

    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected nonattainment or maintenance areas would be and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or maintenance receptors.7 Specifically, the EPA determined whether a state's contributing emissions were at or above a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone NAAQS). If a state's contribution did not exceed the one percent threshold, the state was not considered “linked” to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state's contribution was equal to or exceeded the one percent threshold, that state was considered “linked” to the downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    7 For purposes of the CSAPR Update, “eastern” states refer to all contiguous states east of the Rocky Mountains, specifically not including: Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico.

    As discussed in the CSAPR Update, the air quality modeling contained in the EPA's technical analysis (1) identified locations in the U.S. where the EPA anticipates nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (these are identified as nonattainment and maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 2017. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74526. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous states in the U.S. and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. Id. at 81 FR 74526 through 74527. The updated modeling data released to support the final CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Final CSAPR Update” in the docket for this action for more details regarding the EPA's modeling analysis.

    Consistent with the framework established in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA's technical analysis in support of the CSAPR Update applied a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb (0.75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74518 through 74519. The EPA considered eastern states whose contributions to a specific receptor meet or exceed the threshold “linked” to that receptor and we analyzed these states further to determine if emissions reductions might be required from each state to address the downwind air quality problem. The EPA determined that one percent was an appropriate threshold to use in that analysis because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for the CSAPR Update to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states. The EPA's analysis further showed that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one percent at the majority of the receptors. Id.; See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the Final CSAPR Update, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. This approach is consistent with the use of a one percent threshold to identify those states “linked” to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein the EPA noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. 76 FR 48208, 48236 through 48237 (August 8, 2011).

    As to western states, the EPA noted in the CSAPR Update that there may be geographically specific factors to consider in evaluating interstate transport, and given the near-term 2017 implementation timeframe, the EPA focused the final CSAPR Update on eastern states. See CSAPR Update at 81 FR 74523. Consistent with our statements in the CSAPR Update, the EPA intends to address western states, like Wyoming, on a case-by-case basis.

    The EPA's air quality modeling as updated for the final CSAPR Update projects that for the Western U.S. (outside of California), there are no nonattainment receptors and only three maintenance receptors located in the Denver, Colorado area. Wyoming emissions are projected to contribute above one percent of the NAAQS at one of these receptors (the “Douglas County maintenance receptor”; see Table 1, below). The modeling also shows that multiple upwind states would collectively contribute to the projected Douglas County maintenance receptor in Colorado. The EPA found that the contribution to ozone concentrations from all states upwind of the Douglas County maintenance receptor in Colorado is about 9.7 percent.8 Thus, the collective contribution of emissions from upwind states represents a large portion of the ozone concentrations at the projected Douglas County maintenance receptor in Colorado.

    8 Please see the spreadsheet titled “Final CSAPR Update—Ozone Design Values & Contributions,” in the docket for this action.

    As noted, the Agency has historically found that the one percent threshold is appropriate for identifying interstate transport linkages for states collectively contributing to downwind ozone nonattainment or maintenance problems because that threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind receptors. The EPA believes contribution from an individual state equal to or above one percent of the NAAQS could be considered significant where the collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states is responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality problem regardless of where the receptor is geographically located. In this case, three states contributing to the Douglas County maintenance receptor, including Wyoming, contribute emissions greater than or equal to one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given these data, the EPA is proposing to find that the one percent threshold is also appropriate to determine the linkage from Wyoming to the Douglas County maintenance receptor in Colorado with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    The EPA is not necessarily determining that one percent of the NAAQS is always an appropriate threshold for identifying interstate transport linkages for all states in the West. For example, the EPA recently evaluated the impact of emissions from Arizona on two projected nonattainment receptors identified in California and concluded that even though Arizona's modeled contribution was greater than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Arizona did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at those receptors. See Proposed Rule, 81 FR 15202 (March 22, 2016); Final Rule, 81 FR 31513 (May 19, 2016). The EPA evaluated the nature of the ozone nonattainment problem at the California receptors and determined that, unlike the receptors identified in the East and unlike the Douglas County maintenance receptor to which Wyoming contributes, only one state—Arizona—contributed above the one percent threshold to the California receptors and that the total contribution from all states linked to the receptors was negligible. See 81 FR at 15203. Considering this information, along with emissions inventories and emissions projections showing Arizona emissions decreasing over time, the EPA determined that Arizona had satisfied the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. Accordingly, where the facts and circumstances support a different conclusion, the EPA has not directly applied the one percent threshold to identify states which may significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

    Likewise, the EPA is not determining that because Wyoming contributes above the one percent threshold, it is necessarily making a significant contribution that warrants further reductions in emissions. As noted above, the one percent threshold identifies a state as “linked,” prompting further inquiry into whether the contributions are significant and whether there are cost-effective controls that can be employed. That inquiry with regard to Wyoming's SIP submittal is provided below.

    In summary, Table 1 shows the air quality modeling results from the final modeling in support of the CSAPR Update. The modeling indicates that Wyoming contributes emissions above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to the Douglas County maintenance receptor in the Denver, Colorado area.

    Table 1—Maintenance Receptor With Wyoming Contribution Modeled Above Monitor I.D. State County Wyoming modeled contribution
  • (ppb)
  • 80350004 Colorado Douglas 1.18

    Wyoming's largest contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 1.18 ppb, which is approximately 1.57% of the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb. Thus, the final modeling in support of the CSAPR Update indicates that the contributions from Wyoming are above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to the Douglas County maintenance receptor in the Denver, Colorado area, and the State's emissions require further evaluation, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary to address the State's emission reduction obligation pursuant to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, WDEQ in its SIP submittal neither identified nor included any ozone or ozone precursor emission reduction measures that the EPA could evaluate to determine whether the state has fully addressed these transport impacts. Accordingly, the EPA cannot conclude that Wyoming's SIP contains sufficient provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the Denver, Colorado area.

    WDEQ's analysis regarding prong 1 is also incomplete as previously described, but the EPA's modeling indicates that Wyoming does not contribute above the one percent threshold to any nonattainment receptors. As discussed above, while the EPA is not necessarily determining that one percent of the NAAQS is always an appropriate threshold for identifying interstate transport linkages for all states in the West, this low level of contribution suggests that Wyoming does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Thus, the EPA is proposing that the Wyoming SIP meets the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 1 requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Based on WDEQ's SIP submittal and the EPA's most recent modeling, the EPA proposes to approve prong 1 and disapprove the prong 2 portion of the February 6, 2014, 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure submittal. The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action and will consider public comments received during the comment period.

    2008 Pb NAAQS

    WDEQ's analysis of potential interstate transport for the 2008 Pb NAAQS discussed the lack of sources with significant Pb emissions near the State's borders. As noted in our October 14, 2011 Infrastructure Guidance Memo, there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from a Pb source increases. See “Guidance on Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” October 14, 2011 at 8. For this reason, the EPA found that the requirements of subsection 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) could be satisfied through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in close proximity to their state borders have emissions that impact the neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. Id. at 8. In that guidance document, the EPA further specified that any source appeared unlikely to contribute significantly to nonattainment unless it was located less than two miles from a state border and emitted at least 0.5 tons per year of Pb. WDEQ's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) analysis noted that there are no Pb sources within two miles of the State's borders. The EPA concurs with the Department's analysis and conclusion that no Wyoming sources have the combination of Pb emission levels and proximity to nearby nonattainment or maintenance areas to contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by other states for this NAAQS. Since Wyoming's SIP is therefore adequate to ensure that such impacts do not occur, the EPA is proposing to approve WDEQ's submittal with regard to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1 and 2 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

    2010 NO2 NAAQS

    Wyoming's 2010 NO2 transport analysis for elements 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) describes how all NO2 monitors within the State and elsewhere in the U.S. showed no violations of the NO2 NAAQS. WDEQ asserted that because the entire country had been designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, Wyoming sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. The Department's analysis is available in the docket for this action.

    The EPA does not agree with the Wyoming's reliance on area designations for purposes of determining whether the State has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As noted above, the EPA has routinely interpreted the obligation to prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind states to be independent of formal designations because exceedances can happen in any area. However, for the reasons explained below, the EPA concurs with the conclusion that emissions from the state do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    Due to the State's limited technical analysis, the EPA evaluated NO2 monitoring data from Wyoming and surrounding states in reaching its conclusion. The EPA notes that the highest monitored NO2 design values in each state bordering or near Wyoming are significantly below the NAAQS (see Table 2).9 The EPA has determined that this information supports the State's contention that it does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS. As shown in Table 2, the maximum design values in states bordering Wyoming are well below the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. As the states near Wyoming are not only attaining, but also maintaining the NAAQS, there are no areas to which Wyoming could significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    9 There is not an NO2 design value presented for Nebraska, as none is available in EPA's Air Trends or AirData Web sites.

    10 The design values for Montana and Utah were derived using EPA's AirData Web site at https://www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. These are not official design values.

    Table 2—Highest Monitored 2010 NO2 NAAQS Design Values State 2013-2015
  • design value
  • (ppb)
  • % of
  • NAAQS (100 ppb)
  • Colorado 72 72 Idaho 43 43 Montana 10 29 29 South Dakota 37 37 Utah 65 65 * Source: https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

    In addition to the monitored levels of NO2 in states near Wyoming being well below the NAAQS, Wyoming's highest official design value from 2013-2015 was also significantly below this NAAQS−49 ppb, compared to the NAAQS level of 100 ppb.11

    11https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

    Based on all of these factors, EPA concurs with the State's conclusion that Wyoming does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in other states. The EPA is therefore proposing to determine that Wyoming's SIP includes adequate provisions to prohibit sources or other emission activities within the State from emitting NO2 in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the NO2 NAAQS.

    IV. Evaluation of Interference With Measures To Protect Visibility State Submissions

    In Wyoming's 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure certifications, the Department pointed to both its Regional Haze SIP and Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 9, Section 2, “Visibility,” to certify that the State meets the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). As explained below, this information is relevant in determining whether Wyoming's SIP will achieve the emission reductions that the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) states mutually agreed are necessary to avoid interstate visibility impacts in Class I areas. See “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),” September 13, 2013, (“2013 Guidance”) at 34.

    WDEQ addressed visibility for the 2008 Pb NAAQS by pointing to the lack of significant sources of Pb in Wyoming near the State's border. Id. at 33. The State did not point to any visibility-related state regulations in its 2006 PM2.5, certification, but generally indicated that they met this requirement.

    Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP

    As stated in the EPA's 2013 Guidance, “[o]ne way in which prong 4 may be satisfied for any relevant NAAQS is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.” Id. at 33.

    On January 12, 2011 and April 19, 2012, Wyoming submitted to the EPA SIP revisions to address the requirements of the regional haze program. The EPA approved Wyoming's April 19, 2012 submittal and partially approved Wyoming's January 12, 2011 submittal in a final action published December 12, 2012. 77 FR 73926. This included EPA approval of Wyoming's BART alternative for SO2, which relied on the State's participation in the backstop SO2 trading program under 40 CFR 51.309.12 In a separate action, the EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the remainder of Wyoming's January 12, 2011 SIP revision. 79 FR 5032 (Jan. 30, 2014). In that action, the EPA disapproved the following portions of the submittal: Wyoming's NOX Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for five units at three facilities; the State's reasonable progress goals; monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements; portions of the long term strategy, and; the provisions necessary to review reasonably attributable visibility improvement. Id. at 5038. The EPA also promulgated a final federal implementation plan (FIP) to address these deficiencies. Id.

    12 Wyoming's “Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program” can be found in Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14, Section 2.

    EPA's Assessment

    The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that the EPA has found to adequately address a state's contribution to visibility impairment in other states. The EPA interprets prong 4 to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. See 2013 Guidance at 33.

    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP submittal may satisfy prong 4. As explained above, one way is through a state's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submittal that it has an EPA approved regional haze SIP in place. Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state can make a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submittal that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility. Such a submittal should point to measures in the state's SIP that limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the resulting reductions conform to any mutually agreed emission reductions under the relevant regional haze regional planning organization (RPO) process.13

    13See id. at 34, and also 76 FR 22036 (April 20, 2011) containing EPA's approval of the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) based on a demonstration by Colorado that did not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP.

    WDEQ worked through its RPO, the WRAP, to develop strategies to address regional haze. To help states in establishing reasonable progress goals for improving visibility in Class I areas, the WRAP modeled future visibility conditions based on the mutually agreed emissions reductions from each state. The WRAP states then relied on this modeling in setting their respective reasonable progress goals. As a result, we consider emissions reductions from measures in Wyoming's SIP that conform with the level of emission reductions the State agreed to include in the WRAP modeling to meet the visibility requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    With regard to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA proposes to find that the State's implementation of the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and the agreed upon SO2 reductions achieved through that program sufficient to meet the requirements of prong 4.14 Under 40 CFR 51.309, certain states, including Wyoming, can satisfy their SO2 BART requirements by adopting an alternative program consisting of SO2 emission milestones and a backstop trading program. See 40 CFR 51.309. Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14, section 2 implements the backstop trading program provisions and the EPA has approved the State's rules, including the SO2 reduction milestones, as satisfying its regional haze SO2 obligations. 77 FR 73926 (Dec. 12, 2012). Wyoming's SIP thus contains measures requiring reductions of SO2 consistent with what the State agreed to achieve under the WRAP process in order to protect visibility. As a result, the EPA is proposing to approve 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

    14 Specifically, the State is required to reach its “emissions milestone” for this program by keeping its SO2 emissions below 141,849 tons/SO2 in 2018 and each year thereafter.

    The EPA is also proposing to approve Wyoming's prong 4 SIP submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The EPA has found that significant impacts from Pb emissions from stationary sources are expected to be limited to short distances from the source. The State noted that it does not have any major sources of Pb located near any bordering state. Further, when evaluating the extent to which Pb could impact visibility, the EPA has found Pb-related visibility impacts insignificant (e.g., less than 0.10 percent). See 2013 Guidance, at 33. The EPA proposes to approve prong 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on Wyoming's conclusion that it does not have any significant sources of lead emissions near another state's border and that it, therefore, does not have emissions of Pb that would interfere with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.

    The EPA is proposing to disapprove Wyoming's prong 4 infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA's disapproval of Wyoming's NOX BART determination in our January 30, 2014 final rulemaking included the specific disapproval of the NOx control measures the State submitted for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2 and 3. See 79 FR 5038.

    As noted, Wyoming referenced both its Regional Haze SIP and WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 as justification for the approvability of prong 4 for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the Department did not provide an alternative demonstration that its SIP contains measures to limit NOX emissions in accordance with the emission reductions it agreed to under the WRAP,15 the EPA's disapproval of portions of Wyoming's NOx BART determination means that Wyoming's SIP does not include measures needed to ensure that its emissions will not interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility from the effects of NAAQS pollutants impacted by NOx. Specifically, NOx is a precursor of PM2.5 and ozone, and is also a term which refers to both NO (nitrogen oxide) and NO2. The EPA is therefore proposing to disapprove prong 4 of Wyoming's infrastructure certifications with regard to the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    15 The Visibility section of WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 does not address NOx emissions reductions.

    If the EPA disapproves an infrastructure SIP submission for prong 4, as we are proposing for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, a FIP obligation will be created. However, as noted previously, the EPA has promulgated a FIP for Wyoming that corrects all regional haze SIP deficiencies. 79 FR 5032. Therefore, there will be no additional practical consequences from the disapproval for WDEQ, the sources within its jurisdiction, or the EPA, and the EPA will not be required to take further action with respect to these prong 4 disapprovals, if finalized, because the FIP already in place would satisfy the requirements with respect to prong 4. See 2013 Guidance at 34-35. Additionally, since the infrastructure SIP submission is not required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 would not apply because the deficiencies are not with respect to a submission that is required under CAA title I part D. Id.

    V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, prong 1 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, as shown in Table 3, below. The EPA is also proposing to disapprove prong 4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and prong 2 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as shown in Table 4. The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed action and will consider public comments received during the comment period.

    Table 3—List of Wyoming Interstate Transport Prongs That the EPA Is Proposing To Approve Proposed approval February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prong 1. October 12, 2011 submittal—2008 Pb NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4. January 24, 2014 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2. March 6, 2015 submittal—2010 SO2 NAAQS:
  • (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
  • Table 4—List of Wyoming Interstate Transport Prongs That the EPA Is Proposing To Disapprove Proposed disapproval August 19, 2011 submittal—2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
  • (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
  • February 6, 2014 submittal—2008 Ozone NAAQS:
  • (D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
  • January 24, 2014 submittal—2010 NO2 NAAQS:
  • (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
  • June 24, 2016 submittal—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
  • (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
  • VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes approval of some state law as meeting federal requirements and proposes disapproval of other state law because it does not meet federal requirements; this proposed action does not propose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27672 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 223 Friday, November 18, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request November 15, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by December 19, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Title: Interstate Shipment of Meat and Poultry.

    OMB Control Number: 0583-0143.

    Summary of Collection: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has been delegated the authority to exercise the functions of the Secretary as provided in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.). These statutes mandate that FSIS protect the public by ensuring that meat and poultry products are safe, wholesome, not adulterated, and properly labeled and packaged. Section 11015 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, enacted on June 18, 2008, and amended the FMIA and PPIA to provide for cooperative programs whereby meat and poultry state-inspected establishments will be eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce.

    Need and Use of the Information: FSIS coordinates a voluntary cooperative program under which participating state-inspected establishments with 25 or fewer employees are eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. States that are interested in participating in the cooperative interstate shipment program must submit a request for an agreement to establish such a program through the appropriate FSIS District Office. In their requests, States must agree to comply with certain conditions in order to qualify for the interstate shipment program. In their request, States must also: (1) Identify establishments in the State that the State recommends for initial selection into the program and (2) include documentation to demonstrate that the State is able to provide necessary inspections services to selected establishments in the State and conduct any related activities that would be required under a cooperative interstate shipment program.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 80.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 2,005.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27774 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0060] International Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard-Setting Activities AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with legislation implementing the results of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are informing the public of the international standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, and the North American Plant Protection Organization, and we are soliciting public comment on the standards to be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0060.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0060, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0060 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 7997039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general information on the topics covered in this notice, contact Ms. Jessica Mahalingappa, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Trade and Capacity Building, International Services, APHIS, room 1132, USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; (202) 799-7121.

    For specific information regarding standard-setting activities of the World Organization for Animal Health, contact Dr. Michael David, Director, International Animal Health Standards Team, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3302.

    For specific information regarding the standard-setting activities of the International Plant Protection Convention, contact Dr. Marina Zlotina, PPQ's IPPC Technical Director, International Phytosanitary Standards, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 130, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2200.

    For specific information on the North American Plant Protection Organization, contact Ms. Patricia Abad, PPQ's NAPPO Technical Director, International Phytosanitary Standards, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 130, Riverdale, MD, 20737; (301) 851-2264.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established as the common international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO was approved by Congress when it enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), which was signed into law on December 8, 1994. The WTO Agreements, which established the WTO, entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531 et seq.). Section 491 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2578), requires the President to designate an agency to be responsible for informing the public of the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standard-setting activities of each international standard-setting organization. The designated agency must inform the public by publishing an annual notice in the Federal Register that provides the following information: (1) The SPS standards under consideration or planned for consideration by the international standard-setting organization; and (2) for each SPS standard specified, a description of the consideration or planned consideration of that standard, a statement of whether the United States is participating or plans to participate in the consideration of that standard, the agenda for U.S. participation, if any, and the agency responsible for representing the United States with respect to that standard.

    “International standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation: (1) Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) regarding food safety; (2) developed under the auspices of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE, formerly known as the Office International des Epizooties) regarding animal health and welfare, and zoonoses; (3) developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in cooperation with the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or (4) established by or developed under any other international organization agreed to by the member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the member countries of the WTO.

    The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) informs the public of Codex standard-setting activities, and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO standard-setting activities.

    FSIS publishes an annual notice in the Federal Register to inform the public of SPS standard-setting activities for Codex. Codex was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization. It is the major international organization for encouraging international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers.

    APHIS is responsible for publishing an annual notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO activities related to international standards for plant and animal health and representing the United States with respect to these standards. Following are descriptions of the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO organizations and the standard-setting agenda for each of these organizations. We have described the agenda that each of these organizations will address at their annual general sessions, including standards that may be presented for adoption or consideration, as well as other initiatives that may be underway at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO.

    The agendas for these meetings are subject to change, and the draft standards identified in this notice may not be sufficiently developed and ready for adoption as indicated. Also, while it is the intent of the United States to support adoption of international standards and to participate actively and fully in their development, it should be recognized that the U.S. position on a specific draft standard will depend on the acceptability of the final draft. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of the standard-setting process, we encourage any persons who are interested in the most current details about a specific draft standard or the U.S. position on a particular standard-setting issue, or in providing comments on a specific standard that may be under development, to contact APHIS. Contact information is provided at the beginning of this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    OIE Standard-Setting Activities

    The OIE was established in Paris, France, in 1924 with the signing of an international agreement by 28 countries. It is currently composed of 180 Members, each of which is represented by a delegate who, in most cases, is the chief veterinary officer of that country or territory. The WTO has recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health standards, reporting global animal disease events, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health.

    The OIE facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in animals by sharing scientific research among its Members. The major functions of the OIE are to collect and disseminate information on the distribution and occurrence of animal diseases and to ensure that science-based standards govern international trade in animals and animal products. The OIE aims to achieve these through the development and revision of international standards for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the safe international trade of animals and animal products.

    The OIE provides annual reports on the global distribution of animal diseases, recognizes the free status of Members for certain diseases, categorizes animal diseases with respect to their international significance, publishes bulletins on global disease status, and provides animal disease control guidelines to Members. Various OIE commissions and working groups undertake the development and preparation of draft standards, which are then circulated to Members for consultation (review and comment). Draft standards are revised accordingly and are then presented to the OIE World Assembly of Delegates (all the Members) during the General Session, which meets annually every May, for review and adoption. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on consensus of the OIE membership.

    The next OIE General Session is scheduled for May 21 to May 26, 2017, in Paris, France. Currently, the Chief Trade Advisor for APHIS' Veterinary Services program is the official U.S. Delegate to the OIE. The Chief Trade Advisor for APHIS' Veterinary Services program intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption. Information about OIE draft Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Code chapters may be found on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal-health/export-animals-oie or by contacting Dr. Michael David (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

    OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Health Code Chapters Adopted during the May 2016 General Session.

    More than 26 Code chapters were amended, rewritten, or newly proposed and presented for adoption at the General Session. The following Code chapters are of particular interest to the United States:

    1. Glossary

    Text was not changed in this Code chapter for the definition of “casings.” The proposal to include esophagi and stomachs in the definition of “casings” was rejected because these contain striated muscle, which is not used in the production of casings.

    2. User's Guide

    Text in this Code chapter was modified for clarity.

    3. Chapter 1.1., Notification of diseases, Infections, Infestations and Provision of Epidemiological information Text in this Code chapter was modified for clarity and consistency. 4. Chapter 1.2., Criteria for the Inclusion of Diseases, Infections, and Infestations Listed by the OIE

    Text in this Code chapter was modified for clarity and consistency.

    5. Chapter 1.2., Criteria for the Inclusion of Diseases, Infections and Infestations in the OIE List

    Text in this Code chapter was modified for clarity and consistency.

    6. Chapter 1.3., Prescribed and alternative Diagnostic tests

    This Code chapter was deleted from the Terrestrial Code because the noted tests are included in the Terrestrial Manual.

    7. Chapter 3.2, Evaluation of Veterinary Services

    A minor change was adopted and approved by Member Countries.

    8. Chapter 6.8., Monitoring of the Quantities and Usage Patterns of Antimicrobial Agents in Food Producing Animals

    The text in this chapter was modified to clarify the therapeutic use of antimicrobial agents means the administration of antimicrobial agents to animals for treating and controlling infectious diseases.

    9. Chapter 7.5., Slaughter of Animals

    The diagrams of the heads of animals detailing the specific locations for the use of captive bolts for the purpose of slaughtering were proposed for removal from the chapter. The diagrams are to be relocated to the OIE Web site.

    10. Chapter 7.6., Killing of Animals for Disease Control Purposes

    References to the use of penetrating and non-penetrating captive bolts as procedures for killing adult poultry were added.

    11. Chapter 7.10., Animal Welfare and Broiler Chicken Production Systems

    Some outcome-based measurables were added, as well as minor editorial changes.

    12. Chapter 7.11, Animal Welfare and Dairy Cattle Production Systems

    This Code chapter includes prescriptive language regarding the housing of dairy cattle to which the United States continues to object and challenge.

    13. Chapter 7.X., Welfare of Working Equids

    This is a new Code chapter that was adopted this year. The United States noted an area of concern that will be considered by the Code Commission for future review.

    14. Chapter 8.3., Infection with Bluetongue Virus

    The current chapter received minor updates that were adopted.

    15. Chapter 8.7., Infection with Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease Virus

    This chapter was adopted in 2015 and received minor updates to make it consistent with other vector borne diseases.

    16. Chapter 8.13., Infection with Rift Valley Fever virus

    Minor changes were made to create harmonization among the vector-borne disease chapters.

    17. Chapter 8.16., Infection with Trichinella spp.

    A minor addition referencing the pertinent Codex Guideline was made and the chapter was adopted.

    18. Chapter 14.7., Infection with Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus

    An editorial change was made to correct an error in Article 14.7.21. and the chapter was adopted.

    19. Chapter 15.X., Infection with Taenia solium

    An addition referencing the prevention of T. solium in humans was made and the chapter was adopted.

    The following Aquatic Manual chapters were revised and adopted, and are of particular interest to the United States:

    Chapter 2.2.2. Infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis Chapter 2.2.4. Necrotising hepatopancreatitis Chapter 2.2.5. Taura syndrome Chapter 2.2.8. Infection with yellow head virus Chapter 2.4.7. Infection with Perkinsus olseni OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code Chapters for Upcoming and Future Review

    • Glossary.

    • Chapter 1.4., Animal health surveillance.

    • Chapter 2.X., Criteria for assessing the safety of commodities.

    • Chapter 4.3., Zoning and compartmentalization.

    • Chapter 4.16., High Health Status Horse Subpopulation.

    • Chapter 5.3., OIE procedures relevant to the WTO/SPS Agreement.

    • Chapter 6.1., The role of veterinary services in food safety.

    • Chapter 6.X., Prevention and control of Salmonella in commercial cattle production systems.

    • Chapter 6.Y., Prevention and control of Salmonella in commercial cattle production systems.

    • Chapter 7.5., Slaughter of animals.

    • Chapter 8.8., Foot and mouth disease virus.

    • Chapter 8.X., Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.

    • Chapter 10.4., Infection with avian influenza virus.

    • Chapter 10.5., Avian mycoplasmosis (Mycoplasma gallisepticum).

    • Chapter 11.11., Infection with lumpy skin disease.

    • Chapter 12.10., Glanders.

    • Chapter 15.1., Infection with African swine fever virus.

    • Chapter 15.X., Infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.

    IPPC Standard-Setting Activities

    The IPPC is a multilateral convention adopted in 1952 for the purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control. The WTO has recognized the IPPC as the standard setting body for plant health. Under the IPPC, the understanding of plant protection has been, and continues to be, broad, encompassing the protection of both cultivated and non-cultivated plants from direct or indirect injury by plant pests. Activities addressed by the IPPC include the development, adoption and implementation of international phytosanitary (or plant health) standards (ISPMs), the harmonization of phytosanitary activities through emerging standards, the facilitation of the exchange of official and scientific information among countries, and the furnishing of technical assistance to developing countries that are contracting parties to the IPPC.

    The IPPC is deposited with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and is an international agreement of 182 contracting parties (CPs). The Convention is implemented by national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) in cooperation with regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs), the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), and the Secretariat of the IPPC. The IPPC has been, and continues to be, administered at the national level by plant quarantine officials whose primary objective is to safeguard plant resources from injurious pests. In the United States, the NPPO is APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program.

    The Eleventh Session of the CPM took place from April 4 to 8, 2016, at FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ program was the U.S. delegate to the CPM. The Deputy Administrator participated in the proceedings and discussed or commented on APHIS' position on any standards up for adoption.

    The following standards were adopted by the CPM at its 2016 meeting. The United States, represented by the Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ program, participated in consideration of these standards. The U.S. position on each of these issues were developed prior to the CPM session and were based on APHIS' analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders:

    • Revisions to ISPM 5: Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms

    • ISPM 37: Determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies (Tephritidae)

    • Annexes to ISPM 28: Phytosanitary treatments:

    ○ 20: Irradiation treatment for Ostrinia nubilalis

    ○ 21: Vapor heat treatment for Bactrocera melanotus and B. xanthodes on Carica papaya

    • Annexes to ISPM 27: Diagnostic Protocols

    ○ 08: Ditylenchus dipsaci and D. destructor

    ○ 09: Genus Anastrepha Schiner

    ○ 10: Bursaphelenchus xylophilus

    ○ 11: Xiphinema americanum sensu lato

    ○ 12: Phytoplasmas

    Other APHIS key achievements from the 2016 CPM meeting were:

    • Continued development of a global electronic phytosanitary system, including to proceed with a pilot study immediately with 14 selected countries, including the United States;

    • Worked towards an International Year of Plant Health (IYPH) in 2020, including the establishment of a steering committee to plan and guide the process for securing a United Nations proclamation for an IYPH and to identify and plan plant health activities and events that will occur in the lead up to and during the international year. The United States will be an active supporter of this initiative;

    • Established a focus group to analyze, develop, and recommend a coherent IPPC program aimed at improving the implementation of adopted standards and to recommend an appropriate committee to oversee this new area of work at the IPPC;

    • Held a special CPM session on phytosanitary risks of sea containers where the CPs agreed to temporarily suspend work on an international standard on sea containers, but consider other actions that IPPC contracting parties can take to continue addressing the sea container pathway for the introduction of plant pests; and

    • Agreed on a path forward on commodity specific standards, which allows countries interested in such standards to resubmit proposals for such work.

    New Standard-Setting Initiatives, Including Those in Development

    A number of expert working group (EWG) meetings or other technical consultations took place during 2016 on the topics listed below. These standard-setting initiatives are under development and may be considered for future adoption. APHIS intends to participate actively and fully in each of these working groups. The U.S. position on each of the topics to be addressed by these various working groups will be developed prior to these working group meetings and will be based on APHIS' technical analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders:

    • EWG on the international movement of grain

    • Technical Panel on Fruit Flies

    • Technical Panel for the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms

    • Technical Panel on Diagnostic Protocols

    • Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments

    • Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine

    For more detailed information on the above, contact Dr. Marina Zlotina (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

    APHIS posts links to draft standards on the Internet as they become available and provides information on the due dates for comments.1 Additional information on IPPC standards (including the standard setting process and adopted standards) is available on the IPPC Web site.2 For the most current information on official U.S. participation in IPPC activities, including U.S. positions on standards being considered, contact Dr. Marina Zlotina (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Those wishing to provide comments on any of the areas of work being undertaken by the IPPC may do so at any time by responding to this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by providing comments through Dr. Zlotina.

    1 For more information on the IPPC draft ISPM member consultation: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/sa_international/sa_phytostandards/ct_draft_standards.

    2 IPPC Web site: https://www.ippc.int/.

    NAPPO Standard-Setting Activities

    NAPPO, a regional plant protection organization created in 1976 under the IPPC, coordinates the efforts among the United States, Canada, and Mexico to protect their plant resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of harmful plant pests, while facilitating intra- and inter-regional trade. NAPPO conducts its work through priority-driven, annual projects conducted by expert groups. Project results and updates are provided during the NAPPO annual meeting. The NAPPO Executive Committee issues a call for project proposals, in general, each year. Projects can include the development of positions, policies, or technical documents, or the development or revision of regional standards for phytosanitary measures (RSPMs). Projects can also include implementation of standards or other capacity development activities such as workshops. After the NAPPO region selects the projects for the year, per approval of NAPPO's Executive Committee, expert groups are formed with subject matter experts from each member country, as well as representatives from key industries or commodity groups (e.g. nursery, seed, forestry, grains, potato, citrus, etc.). In the United States, draft standards are circulated to industry, States, and various government agencies for consideration and comment. The draft documents are posted on the NAPPO Web site.3 Once revisions are made, the updated draft is sent to the NAPPO Advisory and Management Committee for technical review, and then to the Executive Committee for final approval, which is granted by consensus.

    3 NAPPO Web site: http://www.nappo.org/.

    The 40th NAPPO annual meeting was held October 31 to November 3, 2016, in Montreal, Canada. The NAPPO Executive Committee meetings took place on October 31, 2016. The Deputy Administrator for PPQ is the U.S. member of the NAPPO Executive Committee.

    Below is a summary of the current NAPPO work program as it relates to the ongoing development of NAPPO standards and projects. The United States (i.e., USDA/APHIS) intends to participate actively and fully in the NAPPO work program. The U.S. position on each topic will be guided and informed by the best scientific information available. For each of the following, the United States will consider its position on any draft standard after it reviews a prepared draft. Information regarding the following NAPPO projects, assignments, activities, and updates on meeting times and locations may be obtained from the NAPPO Web site or by contacting Ms. Patricia Abad (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).

    The 2016 work program includes the following topics being worked on by NAPPO expert groups:

    1. Asian Gypsy Moth: Validate specified risk periods for regulated Asian gypsy moth (AGM) in countries of origin. Review available data in AGM-regulated countries to determine whether any changes in specified risk period for oviposition, flight, and establishment of AGM should be considered and whether such changes would potentially have an impact on the requirements of the vessel certification program.

    2. Biological Control: Develop an online English course to provide training on preparing a petition for first release of an entomophagous biological control agent. Adapt into an online module the material used for the 2015 NAPPO workshop on the topic, which was based on the requirements outlined in NAPPO RSPM 12, Guidelines for petition for first release of non-indigenous entomophagous biological control agents. This online course was completed in October 2016.

    3. Electronic Phytosanitary Certification: Provide assistance and technical support to the IPPC ePhyto Steering Group. Provide input to the IPPC ePhyto Steering Group, especially to help address mechanisms of exchange, security and secure transmission, and standardization of data.

    4. Forestry: Organize a multi-region conference on ISPM 15 implementation, following the recommendation that came out of the NAPPO-Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) workshop. In 2016, NAPPO partnered with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and other regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs) in the Americas to hold a regional workshop aimed at enhancing global compliance with the international standard for wood packaging materials (known as ISPM 15) and thereby further reduce the threat of wood and forest pests in trade. The workshop was held at IICA Headquarters in San Jose, Costa Rica, from August 29 to September 2, 2016. Approximately 40 plant health government and industry experts representing 18 countries in the Americas attended the event in addition to 14 officials who organized, presented, and/or supported logistics. The workshop provided an opportunity for participants to interact and share experiences and approaches to improve the global implementation ISPM 15, as well as to develop follow-up steps aimed to enhance implementation. The event also included a site visit near San Jose to observe a demonstration of the process for inspecting wood based on the standard.

    Develop a NAPPO standard on the potential use of systems approaches to manage pest risks associated with the movement of wood. Develop an integrated measures approach which may include: inspections (at harvest, during production, prior to and or following export), prescribed production activities; laboratory diagnostics; the application of treatments; the relationship between infested areas and pest free areas and general aspects of surveillance. The specification for this standard was approved by NAPPO in 2015.

    5. Grain: Finalize the review of RSPM 13, Guidelines to establish, maintain and verify Karnal bunt pest free areas in North America. Reach consensus on how to manage the issue of pest free areas in this case in order to finalize the revision of the standard. On July 6, 2016, NAPPO's Executive Committee approved and signed a revised version of the standard developed by the expert group, thereby completing this project.

    Develop a NAPPO discussion document in preparation for the IPPC Expert Working Group tasked with the development of an ISPM on International Movement of Grain. On August 12, 2016, NAPPO submitted a discussion document to the IPPC on the shared perspectives of NAPPO member countries on this topic.

    Develop a NAPPO discussion document on a North American approach to preventing introduction, establishment, and spread of Khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium) in various pathways. Evaluate each NAPPO country's current regulatory approach to khapra beetle (prevention, detection, and response) to identify similarities, differences and gaps and determine the feasibility of closing gaps and streamlining the approach.

    6. Lymantriids: Develop a NAPPO Science and Technology paper on the risks associated with Lymantriids of potential concern to the NAPPO region, identifying potential species and pathways of concern. Continue the development of a comprehensive examination of Lymantriids to identify species of potential concern to North America which may travel on the same pathway as AGM in order to help inform regulatory decisionmaking by all NAPPO member countries.

    7. Phytosanitary Alert System: Manage the NAPPO pest reporting system (Phytosanitary Alert System-PAS). Meet reporting obligations under the IPPC and facilitate awareness, detection, prevention, and management of exotic plant pest species within North America.

    8. Advancing key phytosanitary concepts: Prepare a discussion document on diversion from intended use. Clearly organize the concepts of diversion from intended use into a discussion document to serve as future reference. The reference document was presented to the NAPPO Executive Committee on October 31, 2016.

    Provide guidance on assessing the likelihood of establishment component of a pest risk analysis (PRA) for quarantine pests. Assess feasibility of developing harmonized regional guidance to assess the likelihood of pest establishment when developing a PRA. The results are aimed to refocus the application of risk management measures on only those pests that are likely to cause harm. During the first half of 2016, upon thorough assessment of relevant standards and existing guidance, the expert group determined that existing guidance was adequate. Therefore, the expert group proposed a change in project scope, approved by the NAPPO Executive Committee in July 6, 2016, to instead develop a NAPPO discussion paper on interpretation of existing guidance in standards for the evaluation of the likelihood of establishment in PRAs.

    Organize an international symposium on inspection sampling to support proper and harmonized implementation of ISPMs 23 (Guidelines for Inspection) and 31 (Methodologies for sampling of consignments) in the NAPPO region and internationally. The international symposium on risk-based sampling, targeted to take place in the summer of 2017, will examine the relevant scientific and statistical concepts associated with inspection sampling, the operational and regulatory challenges of implementation, the outreach/in-reach efforts needed for acceptance and capacity building, and opportunities for harmonization. The purpose of the symposium is to bring together government agencies, researchers and analysts, industries and international organizations to collaborate in the development and implementation of risk based sampling methods for phytosanitary inspection. Symposium proceedings will be created as an enduring reference.

    9. Potato: Revise the pest list for RSPM 3, Movement of potatoes into a NAPPO member country. Undertake the annual revision of the pest list.

    Work to finalize the review of the existing RSPM 3, Movement of potatoes into a NAPPO member country, to align it with ISPM 33, Pest free potato (Solanum sp.) micropropagative material and minitubers for international trade, and discuss any adjustments required by NAPPO member countries. Review comments received from the country consultation of the draft revision and make adjustments as required.

    Revise Annex 6, Pre-shipment testing for PVYN, while undertaking a full 5-year review of RSPM 3, Movement of potatoes into a NAPPO member country. Update the current Annex 6 of RSPM 3, based on the PVY TAG Science and Technology document finalized in 2013, while undertaking the 5-year review of RSPM 3.

    10. Seeds: Develop harmonized criteria for evaluating phytosanitary seed treatments. Develop a discussion document providing a list of criteria for evaluating phytosanitary seed treatments, as well as the identification of data gaps and research needs where they may exist.

    11. Foundational/Procedural documents: Revision/update of various foundational or procedural documents. In 2016, NAPPO's Advisory and Management Committee has been working to update various NAPPO foundational and procedural documents. On July 6, 2016, NAPPO's Executive Committee approved an updated version of NAPPO's Constitution and By-Laws as well as the 2016-2020 NAPPO Strategic Plan. Edits in the Constitution and By-Laws were minor in nature to update terms and practices and to streamline the document. The new Strategic Plan outlines how NAPPO will be guided by regional priorities, core goals, and focus over the next 5 years. The documents were signed during the 2016 NAPPO Annual Meeting.

    The PPQ Deputy Administrator, as the official U.S. delegate to NAPPO, intends to participate in the adoption of these regional plant health standards and projects, including the work described above, once they are completed and ready for such consideration.

    The information in this notice contains all the information available to us on NAPPO standards under development or consideration. For updates on meeting times and for information on the expert groups that may become available following publication of this notice, visit the NAPPO Web site or contact Ms. Patricia Abad (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). Information on official U.S. participation in NAPPO activities, including U.S. positions on standards being considered, may also be obtained from Ms. Abad. Those wishing to provide comments on any of the topics being addressed in the NAPPO work program may do so at any time by responding to this notice (see ADDRESSES above) or by transmitting comments through Ms. Abad.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of November 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27791 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Applications for Licensing as a Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Company Under the Rural Business Investment Program AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the acceptance of applications from newly-formed Rural Business Investment Companies (RBICs) or new funds from existing RBICs who are interested in obtaining a licensed fund as non-leveraged RBICs under the Agency's Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP).

    DATES:

    The Agency began accepting applications for non-leveraged status on August 6, 2012, and will continue to accept applications for non-leveraged status on a continuous basis until such time the Agency determines otherwise.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address for Application Submission: Completed applications must be sent to Specialty Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room Number 4204-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3226.

    Address for Requesting Information: Application materials and other information may be requested by writing to Kristi Kubista-Hovis, Acting Director, Specialty Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4204-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3226.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Detailed information on the RBIP, including application materials and instructions, can be found on the Agency's Web site at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-business-investment-program. You also may request information from the Agency by contacting David Chesnick, Program Manager, Rural Business Investment Program, Specialty Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4221-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3226, at (202) 690-0433.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 defines “collection of information” as a requirement for “answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons” (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). The collection requirement associated with this Notice is expected to receive less than 10 respondents and therefore the Act does not apply.

    Overview Information

    Federal Agency Name. Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

    Opportunity Title. RBIP for Non-leveraged RBICs.

    Announcement Type. Subsequent announcement.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number. The CFDA number for the program impacted by this action is 10.860, Rural Business Investment Program.

    Dates. The Agency began accepting applications for non-leveraged status on August 6, 2012, and will continue to accept applications for non-leveraged status until such time the Agency determines otherwise. Availability of Notice. This Notice is available on the USDA Rural Development Web site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-business-investment-program.

    I. Opportunity Description

    A. Background. The purpose of Subtitle H of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2009cc et seq.) is to promote economic development and the creation of wealth and job opportunities in rural areas and among individuals living in those areas through venture capital investments by for-profit RBICs.

    Prior to August 6, 2012, the Agency issued licenses to qualified RBICs as leveraged RBICs only. A notice published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2012, (77 FR 39675), informed the public that the Agency would begin accepting non-leveraged RBIC license applications on August 6, 2012.

    The purpose of this current Notice is to notify interested RBICs that the Agency is still accepting applications from qualified RBICs for licensing as non-leveraged RBICs under the RBIP. The Agency will continue to accept such applications until such other time the Agency determines otherwise.

    B. Program Authority. Subtitle H of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2009cc et seq.) establishes the RBIP.

    C. Definition of Terms. The terms defined in 7 CFR part 4290 are applicable to this Notice.

    II. Licensing Information

    A. Number of Licenses. The Agency intends to issue approximately two non-leveraged RBIC licenses a year, subject to sufficient resources. However, additional applications for licenses may be considered if sufficient resources are made available.

    B. Type of License. Non-leveraged.

    III. Eligibility Information

    Applicants and their applications are subject to the provisions of this Notice and to the provisions of 7 CFR part 4290. In order to be eligible for non-leveraged status under this Notice, the applicant must demonstrate that one or more Farm Credit System (FCS) institution(s) will invest in the RBIC and, individually or collectively, hold 10 percent or more the applicant's total capital.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    A. Where to Obtain Applications. Applicants may obtain applications and other applicable application material from the Agency's Specialty Programs Division, as provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. Because applications will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis, the Agency recommends that potential applicants who plan to request application materials via mail request such materials as soon as possible.

    Application materials may also be obtained via http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-business-investment-program or by contacting the Agency at the address and phone number provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    B. Prior to Preparing Application. The Agency recommends that those interested in applying for non-leveraged licensing contact the Agency at the address and phone number provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice to determine the status of the non-leveraged program in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure of resources by the applicant. As noted earlier in this Notice, the Agency intends to issue approximately two non-leveraged licenses a year, due to limited resources, the Agency may not be able to review more than the two applications in any 1 fiscal year.

    C. Content and Form of Submission. Applications must be submitted in accordance with the application instructions contained in this Notice and in 7 CFR 4290. Applicants must submit complete initial applications in order to be considered. Applications must be submitted in hard copy form and on a USB flash drive; applications sent by facsimile will not be accepted.

    Contents of the initial application include RD Form 4290-1, “Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) Application,” Part I, Management Assessment Questionnaire (MAQ), and RD Form 4290-2, “Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) Application,” Part II, Exhibits (exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, P, V, and Z).

    Submit two complete, original hard copy sets of the RD Form 4290-1 and RD Form 4290-2 (excluding Exhibit P, which is required in electronic form only). Place each of the two original sets in a large 3-ring binder. Label the binders with the RBIC's name. Submit one complete and unbound one-sided hard copy of the MAQ and Exhibits suitable for photocopying (i.e., no hole punches, staples, paper clips, tabs, or binders).

    Applicants must enclose in their submission a nonrefundable licensing fee of $500 in the form of a check payable to USDA.

    D. When to Submit. The Agency is accepting applications for non-leveraged status until such time the Agency determines otherwise.

    E. Where to Submit. The applicant must submit the application material to the Agency's Specialty Programs Division as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    F. How to Submit. Applicants are encouraged to submit their applications via package/parcel service.

    V. Program Provisions

    This section of the Notice identifies the procedures the Agency will use to process and select applicants for licensing as a non-leveraged RBIC. More information about the RBIP is available in the regulation at 7 CFR part 4290.

    The Agency will review each application it receives in response to this Notice with regard to eligibility and completeness. If the application is incomplete, the Agency will notify the applicant of the information that is missing. The applicant must then provide the missing information in order for the Agency to further review the application.

    The Agency will select applicants for licensing as a non-leveraged RBIC on a first-come, first-served basis. The Agency will determine the order of applications based on the date the Agency receives a complete application. For example, if an application is received on July 1, but is incomplete, and the applicant supplies the Agency with the missing information on August 1, then that application will be considered for selection on the basis of the August 1 date—the date on which the application was complete. Therefore, the Agency encourages applicants to ensure their applications are complete prior to submitting them.

    Only those applications that are eligible will be processed further for determining whether the applicant will be licensed as a non-leveraged RBIC. However, not all applications received in response to this Notice will receive this further processing. For each application that receives further processing, the Agency or its designee will focus its assessment of the application on the consistency of the newly formed RBIC's business plan with the goals of the RBIP program and on the applicant's management team's qualifications. Following this assessment, if the initial recommendation is favorable, the Agency or its designee will interview the applicant's management team.

    Based on the assessment and interview, a preliminary determination will be made as to whether or not to select the applicant for non-leveraged status. If the preliminary determination is favorable, the Agency will send to the applicant a Letter of Conditions (also known as a “Green Light” letter) and the applicant will be invited to submit an updated RD Form 4290-1, Part I, Management Assessment Questionnaire, and RD Form 4290-2, Part II, Exhibits. Upon receipt of the Letter of Conditions, the applicant has 24 months to raise their private equity capital. Once a selected applicant has achieved full compliance with the regulations governing licensing as an RBIC, the Agency will issue the non-leveraged license to the RBIC.

    VI. Administrative Information Applicable to This Notice A. Notifications

    1. Eligibility. The Agency will notify the applicant in writing whether or not the application is determined to be eligible for participation in the RBIP. If an applicant is determined by the Agency to be ineligible, the Agency will provide the reason(s) the applicant was rejected. Such applicant will have review and appeal rights as specified in this Notice.

    2. License. Each applicant receiving a “Green Light” letter will be notified whether or not the RBIC will be licensed after the Agency's review of the updated RD Form 4290-1, Part I, Management Assessment Questionnaire, and RD Form 4290-2, Part II, Exhibits.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    1. Review or Appeal Rights. A person may seek a review of an adverse Agency decision under this Notice or appeal to the National Appeals Division in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

    2. Notification of Unfavorable Decisions. If at any time prior to license approval it is decided that favorable action will not be taken, the Agency will notify the applicant in writing of the decision and of the reasons why issuing a non-leveraged license was not favorably considered. The notification will inform the applicant of its rights to an informal review, mediation, and appeal of the decision in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

    VII. Agency Contacts

    For further information about this Notice or for assistance with the program requirements, please contact the Specialty Programs Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4204-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3226. Telephone: (202) 720-1400.

    VIII. Nondiscrimination

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

    (3) Email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Samuel H. Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27731 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA) Inviting Applications for the Rural Business Development Grant Program To Provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation Systems AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice is to invite applications for grants to provide Technical Assistance for Rural Transportation (RT) systems under the Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) program pursuant to 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, 2 CFR chapter IV and 2 CFR part 200 for fiscal year (FY) 2017, subject to the availability of funding to provide Technical Assistance for RT systems and for RT systems to Federally Recognized Native American Tribes' (FRNAT) (collectively “Programs”) and the terms provided in such funding. This Notice is being issued before the FY 2017 appropriation has been enacted in order to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, prepare and submit their applications, and give the Agency time to process applications in FY 2017. This Notice is based on the assumption that the FY 2017 appropriation will be identical to its successors. Should that not be the case, this Notice will be amended to reflect those changes. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available to the Agency through appropriations. Awards under both grant Programs will be competitively awarded to eligible applicant(s) which historically has been a qualified national Nonprofit organization. It is expected that one grant will be for the provision of Technical Assistance to RT Projects and that the other grant will be for the provision of Technical Assistance to RT Projects operated by FRNATs only.

    All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.

    All initially capitalized terms in this Notice, other than proper names, are defined in 7 CFR 4280.403.

    DATES:

    Completed applications must be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on March 31, 2017. Applications received at a USDA Rural Development State Office after this date will not be considered for FY 2017 funding.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications in paper format to the USDA Rural Development State Office for the State where the Project is located. A list of the USDA Rural Development State Office contacts can be found at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/contact-us/state-offices.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Specialty Programs Division, Business Programs, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., MS 3226, Room 4204-South, Washington, DC 20250-3226, or call 202-720-1400. For further information on this Notice, please contact the USDA Rural Development State Office in the State in which the applicant's headquarters is located.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

    Solicitation Opportunity Title: Rural Business Development Grants.

    Announcement Type: Initial Solicitation Announcement.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.351.

    Dates: Completed applications must be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office no later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on March 31, 2017, to be eligible for FY 2017 grant funding. Applications received after this date will not be eligible for FY 2017 grant funding.

    A. Program Description

    1. Purpose of the Program. The purpose of this program is to improve the economic conditions of Rural Areas.

    2. Statutory Authority. This program is authorized under section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E. The program is administered on behalf of Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) at the State level by the USDA Rural Development State Offices. Assistance provided to Rural Areas under the program has historically included the provision of on-site Technical Assistance to local and regional governments, public transit agencies, and related Nonprofit and for-profit organizations in Rural Areas; the development of training materials; and the provision of necessary training assistance to local officials and agencies in Rural Areas.

    Awards under the RBDG passenger transportation program will be made on a competitive basis using specific selection criteria contained in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, and in accordance with section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Information required to be in the application package includes Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance;” environmental documentation in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, “Environmental Policies and Procedures;” Scope of Work Narrative; Income Statement; Balance Sheet or Audit for previous 3 years; AD-1047, “Debarment/Suspension Certification;” AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion;” AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements;” SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities;” RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement;” RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement;” and a letter providing Board authorization to obtain assistance. For the FRNAT grant, which must benefit FRNATs, at least 75 percent of the benefits of the Project must be received by members of FRNATs. The Project that scores the greatest number of points based on the RBDG selection criteria and the discretionary points will be selected for each grant.

    Applicants must be qualified national Nonprofit organizations with experience in providing Technical Assistance and training to Rural communities nationwide for the purpose of improving passenger transportation service or facilities. To be considered “national,” RBS requires a qualified organization to provide evidence that it operates RT assistance programming nation-wide. There is not a requirement to use the grant funds in a multi-State area. Grants will be made to qualified national non-profit organizations for the provision of Technical Assistance and training to Rural communities for the purpose of improving passenger transportation services or facilities.

    3. Definition of Terms. The definitions applicable to this Notice are published at 7 CFR 4280.403.

    4. Application Awards. The Agency will review, evaluate, and score applications received in response to this Notice based on the provisions in 7 CFR 4280, subpart E and as indicated in this Notice. However, the Agency advises all interested parties that the applicant bears the burden in preparing and submitting an application in response to this Notice.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Grants.

    Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2017.

    Available Funds: Anyone interested in submitting an application for funding under this program is encouraged to consult the Rural Development Web Newsroom Web site at http://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/notices-solicitation-applications-nosas for funding information.

    Approximate Number of Awards: To be determined based on the number of qualified applications received. Historically two awards have been made.

    Maximum Awards: Will be determined by the specific funding provided for the Programs in the FY 2017 Appropriations Act.

    Award Date: Prior to September 30, 2017.

    Performance Period: October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018.

    Renewal or Supplemental Awards: None.

    C. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants.

    To be considered eligible, an entity must be a qualified national Nonprofit organization serving Rural Areas as evidenced in its organizational documents and demonstrated experience, per 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E. Grants will be competitively awarded to qualified national Nonprofit organizations.

    The Agency requires the following information to make an eligibility determination that an applicant is a national Nonprofit organization. These applications must include, but are not limited to, the following:

    (a) An original and one copy of SF 424, “Application for Federal Assistance (For Non-construction);”

    (b) Copies of applicant's organizational documents showing the applicant's legal existence and authority to perform the activities under the grant;

    (c) A proposed scope of work, including a description of the proposed Project, details of the proposed activities to be accomplished and timeframes for completion of each task, the number of months duration of the Project, and the estimated time it will take from grant approval to beginning of Project implementation;

    (d) A written narrative that includes, at a minimum, the following items:

    (i) An explanation of why the Project is needed, the benefits of the proposed Project, and how the Project meets the grant eligible purposes;

    (ii) Area to be served, identifying each governmental unit, i.e., town, county, etc., to be affected by the Project;

    (iii) Description of how the Project will coordinate Economic Development activities with other Economic Development activities within the Project area;

    (iv) Businesses to be assisted, if appropriate, and Economic Development to be accomplished;

    (v) An explanation of how the proposed Project will result in newly created, increased, or supported jobs in the area and the number of projected new and supported jobs within the next 3 years;

    (vi) A description of the applicant's demonstrated capability and experience in providing the proposed Project assistance, including experience of key staff members and persons who will be providing the proposed Project activities and managing the Project;

    (vii) The method and rationale used to select the areas and businesses that will receive the service;

    (viii) A brief description of how the work will be performed, including whether organizational staff or consultants or contractors will be used; and

    (ix) Other information the Agency may request to assist it in making a grant award determination.

    (e) The latest 3 years of financial information to show the applicant's financial capacity to carry out the proposed work. If the applicant is less than 3 years old, at a minimum, the information should include all balance sheet(s), income statement(s) and cash flow statement(s). A current audited report is required if available;

    (f) Documentation regarding the availability and amount of other funds to be used in conjunction with the funds from RBDG;

    (g) A budget which includes salaries, fringe benefits, consultant costs, indirect costs, and other appropriate direct costs for the Project.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching. Matching funds are not required.

    3. Other.

    Applications will only be accepted from qualified national Nonprofit organizations to provide Technical Assistance for RT. There are no “responsiveness,” or “threshold” eligibility criteria for these grants. There is no limit on the number of applications an applicant may submit under this announcement. In addition to the forms listed under program description, Form AD-3030 “Representations Regulation Felony Conviction and Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants,” must be completed in the affirmative.

    None of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

    None of the funds made available may be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.

    4. Completeness Eligibility.

    Applications will not be considered for funding if they do not provide sufficient information to determine eligibility or are missing required elements.

    D. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package.

    For further information, entities wishing to apply for assistance should contact the USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice to obtain copies of the application package.

    Applications must be submitted in paper format. Applications submitted to a USDA Rural Development State Office must be received by the closing date and local time.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission.

    An application must contain all of the required elements. Each application received in a USDA Rural Development State Office will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the eligible purposes contained in section 310B(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(c)). Each selection priority criterion outlined in 7 CFR 4280.435 must be addressed in the application. Failure to address any of the criterion will result in a zero-point score for that criterion and will impact the overall evaluation of the application. Copies of 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E, will be provided to any interested applicant making a request to a USDA Rural Development State Office.

    All Projects to receive Technical Assistance through these passenger transportation grant funds are to be identified when the applications are submitted to the USDA Rural Development State Office. Multiple Project applications must identify each individual Project, indicate the amount of funding requested for each individual Project, and address the criteria as stated above for each individual Project.

    For multiple-Project applications, the average of the individual Project scores will be the score for that application.

    The applicant documentation and forms needed for a complete application are located in the PROGRAM DESCRIPTION section of this notice, and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E.

    (a) There are no specific formats, specific limitations on number of pages, font size and type face, margins, paper size, number of copies, and the sequence or assembly requirements.

    (b) The component pieces of this application should contain original signatures on the original application.

    (c) Since these grants are for Technical Assistance for transportation purposes, no additional information requirements other than those described in this Notice and 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E are required.

    3. Unique entity identifier and System for Award Management.

    All applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Each applicant (unless the applicant is an individual or Federal awarding agency that is excepted from the requirements under 2 CFR 25.110(b)) or (c) or has an exception approved by the Federal awarding agency under 2 CFR 25.110(d) is required to: (i) Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application; (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The Federal awarding agency may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

    4. Submission Dates and Times.

    (a) Application Deadline Date: No later than 4:30 p.m. (local time) on March 31, 2017.

    Explanation of Deadlines: Applications must be in the USDA Rural Development State Office by the local deadline date and time as indicated above. If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day.

    (b) The deadline date means that the completed application package must be received in the USDA Rural Development State Office by the deadline date established above. All application documents identified in this Notice are required.

    (c) If complete applications are not received by the deadline established above, the application will neither be reviewed nor considered under any circumstances.

    (d) The Agency will determine the application receipt date based on the actual date postmarked.

    (e) This Notice is for RT Technical Assistance grants only and therefore, intergovernmental reviews are not required.

    (f) These grants are for RT Technical Assistance grants only, no construction or equipment purchases are permitted. If the grantee has a previously approved indirect cost rate, it is permissible, otherwise, the applicant may elect to charge the 10 percent indirect cost permitted under 2 CFR 200.414(f) or request a determination of its Indirect Cost Rate. Due to the time required to evaluate Indirect Cost Rates, it is likely that all funds will be awarded by the time the Indirect Cost Rate is determined. No foreign travel is permitted. Pre-Federal award costs will only be permitted with prior written approval by the Agency.

    (g) Applicants must submit applications in hard copy format as previously indicated in the APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION section of this notice. If the applicant wishes to hand deliver its application, the addresses for these deliveries can be located in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    (h) If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    E. Application Review Information

    1. Criteria.

    All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated and scored based on the selection criteria and weights contained in 7 CFR 4280.435 and will select grantees subject to the grantees' satisfactory submission of the additional items required by 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. Failure to address any one of the criteria in 7 CFR 4280.435 by the application deadline will result in the application being determined ineligible, and the application will not be considered for funding. The amount of an RT grant may be adjusted, at the Agency's discretion, to enable the Agency to award RT grants to the applications with the highest priority scores in each category.

    2. Review and Selection Process.

    The State Offices will review applications to determine if they are eligible for assistance based on requirements contained in 7 CFR 4280.416 and 4280.417. If determined eligible, your application will be submitted to the National Office. Funding of Projects is subject to the applicant's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by that subpart and the USDA Rural Development Letter of Conditions. The Agency reserves the right to award additional discretionary points under 7 CFR 4280.435(k).

    In awarding discretionary points, the Agency scoring criteria regularly assigns points to applications that direct loans or grants to Projects based in or serving census tracts with poverty rates greater than or equal to 20 percent. This emphasis will support Rural Development's mission of improving the quality of life for Rural Americans and commitment to directing resources to those who most need them.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information

    1. Federal Award Notices.

    Successful applicants will receive notification for funding from their USDA Rural Development State Office. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applications will receive notification by mail.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR 4280.408, 4280.410, and 4280.439. Awards are subject to USDA Departmental Grant Regulations at 2 CFR Chapter IV which incorporates the new Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR part 200.

    All successful applicants will be notified by letter, which will include a Letter of Conditions, and a Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions. This letter is not an authorization to begin performance. If the applicant wishes to consider beginning performance prior to the grant being officially closed, all pre-award costs must be approved in writing and in advance by the Agency. The grant will be considered officially awarded when all conditions in the Letter of Conditions have been met and the Agency obligates the funding for the Project.

    Additional requirements that apply to grantees selected for this program can be found in 7 CFR part 4280, subpart E; the Grants and Agreements regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture codified in 2 CFR Chapter IV, and successor regulations.

    In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/value-added-producer-grants.

    The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

    (a) Form RD 4280-2 “Rural Business-Cooperative Service Financial Assistance Agreement.”

    (b) Letter of Conditions.

    (c) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

    (d) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

    (e) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

    (f) Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

    (g) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirement (Grants).”

    (h) Form AD-3030, “Assurance Regarding Felony Conviction or Tax Delinquent Status for Corporate Applicants.” Must be signed by corporate applicants who receive an award under this Notice.

    (i) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.” Each prospective recipient must sign Form RD 400-4, Assurance Agreement, which assures USDA that the recipient is in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 7 CFR part 15 and other Agency regulations. That no person will be discriminated against based on race, color or national origin, in regard to any program or activity for which the re-lender receives Federal financial assistance. That nondiscrimination statements are in advertisements and brochures.

    Collect and maintain data provided by ultimate recipients on race, sex, and national origin and ensure Ultimate Recipients collect and maintain this data. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB Federal Register notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” (62 FR 58782), October 30, 1997. Sex data will be collected in accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. These items should not be submitted with the application but should be available upon request by the Agency.

    The applicant and the ultimate recipient must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

    (j) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.

    (k) Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”

    3. Reporting.

    (a) A Financial Status Report and a Project performance activity report will be required of all grantees on a quarterly basis until initial funds are expended and yearly thereafter, if applicable, based on the Federal fiscal year. The grantee will complete the Project within the total time available to it in accordance with the Scope of Work and any necessary modifications thereof prepared by the grantee and approved by the Agency. A final Project performance report will be required with the final Financial Status Report. The final report may serve as the last quarterly report. The final report must provide complete information regarding the jobs created and supported as a result of the grant if applicable. Grantees must continuously monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met, projected work by time periods is being accomplished, and other performance objectives are being achieved. Grantees must submit an original of each report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the end of the quarter. The Project performance reports must include, but not be limited to, the following:

    (1) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;

    (2) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall Project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of particular Project work elements during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accompanied by a statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;

    (3) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period;

    (4) Any special reporting requirements, such as jobs supported and created, businesses assisted, or Economic Development which results in improvements in median household incomes, and any other specific requirements, should be placed in the reporting section in the Letter of Conditions; and

    (5) Within 90 days after the conclusion of the Project, the grantee will provide a final Project evaluation report. The last quarterly payment will be withheld until the final report is received and approved by the Agency. Even though the grantee may request reimbursement on a monthly basis, the last 3 months of reimbursements will be withheld until a final Project, Project performance, and financial status report are received and approved by the Agency.

    G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact(s)

    For general questions about this announcement, please contact your USDA Rural Development State Office provided in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    H. Civil Rights Requirements

    All grants made under this Notice are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as required by the USDA (7 CFR part 15, subpart A) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Title IX, Executive Order 13166 (Limited English Proficiency), Executive Order 11246, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.

    I. Other Information Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirement contained in this Notice is approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 0570-0070.

    Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

    All applicants, in accordance with 2 CFR part 25, must have a DUNS number, which can be obtained at no cost via a toll-free request line at (866) 705-5711 or online at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. Similarly, all applicants must be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application. Applicants may register for the SAM at http://www.sam.gov. All recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive total compensation in accordance with 2 CFR part 170.

    I. Nondiscrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) Email: [email protected]

    USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Samuel H. Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27734 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Luis Alberto Najera-Citalan, Inmate Number: 10656-279, FCI Beaumont Low, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 26020, Beaumont, TX 77720.

    On June 9, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Luis Alberto Najera-Citalan (“Najera-Citalan”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Najera-Citalan intentionally and knowingly conspired to knowingly and willfully export, attempt to export, and cause to be exported to Mexico from the United States a defense article, that is, to wit: approximately five (5) AR-15 style rifles which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Najera-Citalan was sentenced to 60 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Najera-Citalan's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Najera-Citalan to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Najera-Citalan.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Najera-Citalan's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Najera-Citalan's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Najera-Citalan had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until June 9, 2025, Luis Alberto Najera-Citalan, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 10656-279, FCI Beaumont Low, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 26020, Beaumont, TX 77720, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Najera-Citalan by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Najera-Citalan may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Najera-Citalan. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 9, 2025.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27780 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Jorge Santana, Jr., Inmate Number: 00927-180, FCI Beaumont Low, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 26020, Beaumont, TX 77720.

    On May 5, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Jorge Santana, Jr. (“Santana”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Santana knowingly and willfully attempted to export and caused to be exported from the United States to Mexico a defense article, that is, a .357 caliber magazine, two (2) 9mm magazines, a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber magazine, approximately 5,440 rounds of 7.62 caliber ammunition, 200 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition, and 400 rounds of .38 super caliber ammunition, which were designed as a defense article on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Santana was sentenced to 66 months in prison, three years of supervised release, 100 hours of community service, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Santana's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Santana to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Santana.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Santana's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Santana's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Santana had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until May 5, 2024, Jorge Santana, Jr., with a last known address of Inmate Number: 00927-180, FCI Beaumont Low, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 26020, Beaumont, TX 77720, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Santana by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Santana may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Santana. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until May 5, 2024.

    Issued this 9th day of November, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27784 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.

    Title: Foreign Availability Procedures.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0004.

    Type of Request: Regular.

    Burden Hours: 510.

    Number of Respondents: 2.

    Average Hours Per Response: 255.

    Needs and Uses: This information is collected in order to respond to requests by Congress and industry to make foreign availability determinations in accordance with Section 768 of the Export Administration Regulations. Exporters are urged to voluntarily submit data to support the contention that items controlled for export for national security reasons are available-in-fact, from a non-U.S. source, in sufficient quantity and of comparable quality so as to render the control ineffective.

    Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, FAX number (202) 395-7285.

    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Jasmeet Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27823 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Hassan Jamil Salame, Inmate Number: 40903-039, FCI Elkton, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon, OH 44432

    On November 3, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Hassan Jamil Salame (“Salame”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Salame knowingly and willfully attempted to export and caused to be exported, defense articles, that is, firearms and ammunition, including a Ruger .44 Magnum revolver, two Bushmaster .223 caliber rifles, a Ruger .45 caliber pistol, a Glock .45 caliber pistol, and a Beretta 9mm pistol from the United States to Lebanon, without first having obtained a license or written approval from the United States Department of State. Salame was sentenced to 45 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $300 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Salame's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Salame to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Salame.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Salame's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Salame's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Salame had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until November 3, 2025, Hassan Jamil Salame, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 40903-039, FCI Elkton, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon, OH 44432, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Salame by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Salame may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Salame. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until November 3, 2025.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27776 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Daniel Miranda-Mendoza, Inmate Number: 73420-379, Great Plains, Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 400, Hinton, OK 73047

    On August 25, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Daniel Miranda-Mendoza (“Miranda-Mendoza”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Miranda-Mendoza intentionally and knowingly conspired to knowingly and willfully export, attempt to export, and caused to be exported from the United States to Mexico, a defense article, that is, to wit: Approximately one Kel-Tec pistol, Model PMR-30, .22 caliber, one Remington rifle, Model 7400, .30-06 caliber, and one Browning rifle, Model X-bolt, .270 caliber, which were designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Miranda-Mendoza was sentenced to 37 months in prison and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Miranda-Mendoza's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Miranda-Mendoza to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Miranda-Mendoza.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Miranda-Mendoza's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Miranda-Mendoza's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Miranda-Mendoza had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until August 25, 2025, Daniel Miranda-Mendoza, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 73420-379, Great Plains, Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 400, Hinton, OK 73047, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Miranda-Mendoza by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Miranda-Mendoza may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Miranda-Mendoza. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until August 25, 2025.

    Issued this _9__ day of __ November____, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27787 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of: Javier Nenos Rea, Inmate Number: 06713-104, D. Ray James, Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Folkston, GA 31537

    On January 13, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Javier Nenos Rea (“Nenos Rea”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Nenos Rea knowingly and willfully attempted to export defense articles, that is, AK-47 assault rifles and a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol, from the United States to Bolivia without having first obtained a license or written approval from the United States Department of State. Nenos Rea was sentenced to 46 months in prison, two years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Nenos Rea's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Nenos Rea to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Nenos Rea.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Nenos Rea's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Nenos Rea's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Nenos Rea had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until January 13, 2025, Javier Nenos Rea, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 06713-104, D. Ray James, Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Folkston, GA 31537, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Nenos Rea by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Nenos Rea may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Nenos Rea. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until January 13, 2025.

    Issued this __9__ day of __ November __, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27786 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Voluntary Self-Disclosure of Violations of the Export Administration Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS ICB Liaison, (202) 482-4895, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This collection of information is needed to detect violations of the Export Administration Act and Regulations, and determine if an investigation or prosecution is necessary and to reach a settlement with violators. Voluntary self-disclosure of EAR violations strengthens BIS's enforcement efforts by allowing BIS to conduct investigations of the disclosed incidents faster than would be the case if BIS had to detect the violations without such disclosures. BIS evaluates the seriousness of the violation and either (1) Informs the person making the is closure that no action is warranted; (2) issues a warning letter; (3) issues a proposed charging letter and attempts to settle the matter; (4) issues a charging letter if settlement is not reached; and/or (5) refers the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0058.

    Form Number(s): N/A.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 388.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3880.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $194,000.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27824 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges

    In the Matter of: Julio Cesar Solis-Castilleja, Inmate Number: 56152-379, FCI Victorville Medium I, Federal Correctional Institution, Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3725, Adelanto, CA 92301.

    On June 30, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Julio Cesar Solis-Castilleja (“Solis-Castilleja”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Solis-Castilleja knowingly and willfully attempted to export and caused to be exported from the United States to Mexico a defense article, that is, a Norinco MAK 90 Sporter 7.62 × 39mm caliber rifle, a Bushmaster .308 caliber rifle, a DPMS Panther .308 caliber rifle, a FN Herstal .308 caliber rifle, a PTR 91C .308 caliber rifle, four (4) 7.62 × 51mm magazines, and one (1) 7.62 × 39mm magazine, which were designated as a defense article on the United States Munitions List, without having first obtained from the Department of State a license for such export or written authorization for such export. Solis-Castilleja was sentenced to 46 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $100 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Solis-Castilleja's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Solis-Castilleja to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Solis-Castilleja.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Solis-Castilleja's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Solis-Castilleja's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Solis-Castilleja had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until June 30, 2024, Julio Cesar Solis-Castilleja, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 56152-379, FCI Victorville Medium I, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 3725, Adelanto,CA 92301, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Solis-Castilleja by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Solis-Castilleja may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Solis-Castilleja. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until June 30, 2024.

    Issued this 9th day of November, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27785 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-801] Solid Urea From Russia: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 12, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia. The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. For the final results of these reviews, we continue to find that subject merchandise has not been sold at less than normal value.

    DATES:

    Effective November 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael A. Romani or Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0198, and (202) 482-2201, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 12, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review and new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on solid urea from Russia.1 The administrative review covers MCC EuroChem; the new shipper review covers Joint Stock Company PhosAgro-Cherepovets (PhosAgro). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. We received no comments. The Department conducted these reviews in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Solid Urea from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Rescission of Administrative Review, in Part; 2014-2015, 81 FR 53414 (August 12, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is solid urea, a high-nitrogen content fertilizer which is produced by reacting ammonia with carbon dioxide. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) item number 3102.10.0010. Previously such merchandise was classified under item number 480.3000 and 3102.10.0000 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.

    Final Results of the Administrative Review

    The Department made no changes to its calculations announced in the Preliminary Results. As a result of this administrative review, we determine that an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for MCC EuroChem for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    Final Results of the New Shipper Review

    The Department made no changes to its calculations announced in the Preliminary Results. As a result of this new shipper review, we determine that an estimated weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for merchandise produced and exported by PhosAgro for the period July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    Assessment

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212 and the Final Modification, 2 the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate all appropriate entries for MCC EuroChem and PhosAgro without regard to antidumping duties.

    2See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8102 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification).

    For entries of subject merchandise during the period of review produced by MCC EuroChem and PhosAgro for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.3

    3See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of the administrative and new shipper reviews for all shipments of solid urea from Russia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate with respect to the administrative review respondent, MCC EuroChem, will be 0.00 percent, the weighted average dumping margin established in the final results of the administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this administrative review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 64.93 percent, the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value investigation.4

    4See Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 52 FR 19557 (May 26, 1987). Also note that following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the antidumping duty order on solid urea from the Soviet Union was transferred to the individual members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. See Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Transfer of the Antidumping Order on Solid Urea From the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic States and Opportunity to Comment, 57 FR 28828 (June 29, 1992).

    With respect to PhosAgro, the new shipper respondent, the Department established a combination cash deposit rate for this company, consistent with its practice, as follows: (1) For subject merchandise produced and exported by PhosAgro, the cash deposit rate will be 0.00 percent; (2) for subject merchandise exported by PhosAgro, but not produced by PhosAgro, the cash deposit rate will be the rate for the all-others established in the less-than-fair-value investigation; and (3) for subject merchandise produced by PhosAgro but not exported by PhosAgro, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the exporter.

    These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results of administrative and new shipper reviews in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 751(a)(2)(B)(iii), 751(a)(3)and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h), 351.214 and 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27819 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Application for Firewalled Status

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Commerce.

    Title: Limited Access Death Master File Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Application for Firewalled Status (Firewalled Status Application Form).

    OMB Control Number: [0692-XXXX].

    Form Number(s): NTIS FM101.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Number of Respondents: NTIS expects to receive approximately 560 applications and renewals for certification every year for access to the Limited Access Death Master File, of which it expects that approximately 20% of the required assessments will be provided by Accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies that will seek firewalled status in a given year. Accordingly, NTIS estimates that it will receive approximately 112 Firewalled Status Application Forms.

    Average Hours Per Response: 1 hour.

    Burden Hours: 112 (112 × 1 hour = 112)

    Needs and Uses: NTIS issued a final rule establishing a program through which persons may become eligible to obtain access to Death Master File (DMF) information about an individual within three years of that individual's death. The final rule was promulgated under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Pub. L. 113-67 (Act). The Act prohibits the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) from disclosing DMF information during the three-year period following an individual's death (Limited Access DMF), unless the person requesting the information has been certified to access the Limited Access DMF pursuant to certain criteria in a program that the Secretary establishes. The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out Section 203 to the Director of NTIS.

    The final rule requires that, in order to become certified, a Person or Certified Person must submit a written attestation from an “Accredited Conformity Assessment Body” (ACAB), as defined in the final rule, that such Person has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. A Certified Person also must provide a new written attestation periodically for renewal of its certification as specified in the final rule. The ACAB must be independent of the Person or Certified Person seeking certification, unless it is a third party conformity assessment body which qualifies for “firewalled status” pursuant to Section 1110.502 of the final rule.

    The Firewalled Status Application Form collects information that NTIS will use to evaluate whether the respondent qualifies for “firewalled status” under the rule, and, therefore, can provide a written attestation in lieu of an independent ACAB's attestation. This information includes specific requirements of Section 1110.502(b) of the final rule, which the respondent ACAB must certify are satisfied, and the provision of specific information by the respondent ACAB, such as the identity of the Person or Certified Person that would be the subject of the attestation and the basis upon which the certifications were made.

    Affected Public: ACABs seeking firewalled status under 15 CFR 1110.502 because they are “owned, managed or controlled” by the Person or Certified Person for whom they are providing assessment(s) and/or audit(s) under the final rule for “Certification Program for Access to the Death Master File.”

    Frequency: Once per attestation.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27822 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms AGENCY:

    National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before January 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to John W. Hounsell, Business and Industry Specialist, Office of Product and Program Management, National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce, 5301 Shawnee Road, Alexandria, VA 22312, email: [email protected] or telephone: 703-605-6184.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This notice informs the public that the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) is requesting approval of a new information collection described in Section II for use in connection with the final rule for the “Certification Program for Access to the Death Master File.” The final rule was published on June 1, 2016 (81 FR 34882), with the rule to become effective on November 28, 2016. The new information collection described in Section II, if approved, will become effective on the effective date of the final rule.

    II. Method of Collection Title of Information Collection (A) “Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF) Accredited Conformity Assessment Body Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” (ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form) (B) “Limited Access Death Master File (LADMF) State or Local Government Auditor General (AG) or Inspector General (IG) Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” (AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form)

    Description of the need for the information and the proposed use: NTIS issued a final rule establishing a program through which persons may become eligible to obtain access to Death Master File (DMF) information about an individual within three years of that individual's death. The final rule was promulgated under Section 203 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Public Law 113-67 (Act). The Act prohibits the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) from disclosing DMF information during the three-year period following an individual's death (Limited Access DMF), unless the person requesting the information has been certified to access the Limited Access DMF pursuant to certain criteria in a program that the Secretary establishes. The Secretary delegated the authority to carry out Section 203 to the Director of NTIS.

    On December 30, 2014, NTIS initially described a “Limited Access Death Master File Systems Safeguards Attestation Form” in the notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 78314 at 78321). To accommodate the requirements of the final rule, NTIS is using both the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form and the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form.

    The ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form requires an “Accredited Conformity Assessment Body” (ACAB), as defined in the final rule, to attest that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. The ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form collects information based on an assessment by the ACAB conducted within three years prior to the date of the Person or Certified Person's submission of a completed certification statement under Section 1110.101(a) of the final rule. This collection includes specific requirements of the final rule, which the ACAB must certify are satisfied, and the provision of specific information by the ACAB, such as the date of the assessment and the auditing standard(s) used for the assessment.

    Section 1110.501(a)(2) of the final rule provides that a state or local government office of AG or IG and a Person or Certified Person that is a department or agency of the same state or local government, respectively, are not considered to be owned by a common “parent” entity under Section 1110.501(a)(1)(ii) for the purpose of determining independence, and attestation by the AG or IG is possible. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form is for the use of a state or local government AG or IG to attest on behalf of a state or local government department or agency Person or Certified Person. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form requires the state or local government AG or IG to attest that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required under Section 1110.102(a)(2) of the final rule. The AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form collects information based on an assessment by the state or local government AG or IG conducted within three years prior to the date of the Person or Certified Person's submission of a completed certification statement under Section 1110.101(a) of the final rule. This collection includes specific requirements of the final rule, which the state or local government AG or IG must certify are satisfied, and the provision of specific information by the state or local government AG or IG, such as the date of the assessment.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: [0692-XXXX].

    Form Number(s): NTIS FM100A and NTIS FM100B.

    Type of Review: New information collection.

    Affected Public: Accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies and state or local government Auditors General or Inspectors General attesting that a Person seeking certification or a Certified Person seeking renewal of certification under the final rule for the “Certification Program for Access to the Death Master File” has information security systems, facilities and procedures in place to protect the security of the Limited Access DMF, as required by the final rule.

    Estimated Number of Respondents

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 500 ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms from Persons and Certified Persons annually.

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 60 AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms from Persons and Certified Persons annually.

    Estimated Time per Response

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 3 hours.

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 3 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1680.

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 1500 (500 × 3 hours = 1500 hours).

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: 180 (60 × 3 hours = 180 hours).

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public

    ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 500 ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms annually at a fee of $525 per form, for a total cost of $262,500. This total annual cost reflects the cost to the Federal Government for the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, which consists of the expenses associated with NTIS personnel reviewing and processing these forms. NTIS estimates that it will take an ACAB's senior auditor three hours to complete the form at a rate of approximately $135 per hour, for a total additional cost to the public of $202,500 (1500 burden hours × $135/hour = $202,500). NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for the ACAB Systems Safeguards forms to be $465,000 ($262,500 in fees + $202,500 in staff time = $465,000).

    AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Form: NTIS expects to receive approximately 60 AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms annually at a fee of $525 per form, for a total cost of $31,500. This total annual cost reflects the cost to the Federal Government for the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms, which consists of the expenses associated with NTIS personnel reviewing and processing these forms. NTIS estimates that it will take an AG or IG senior auditor three hours to complete the form at a rate of approximately $100 per hour, for a total additional cost to the public of $18,000 (180 burden hours × $100/hour = $18,000). NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms to be $49,500 ($31,500 in fees + $18,000 in staff time = $49,500).

    NTIS estimates the total annual cost to the public for both the ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms and the AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms to be $514,500 ($465,000 for ACAB Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms + $49,500 for AG or IG Systems Safeguards Attestation Forms.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27707 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO-P-2016-0046] Request for Comments and Notice of Public Meeting on a Preliminary Draft Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Currently Being Negotiated at The Hague Conference on Private International Law AGENCY:

    United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Hague Conference on Private International Law (“The Hague Conference”), an international organization in the Netherlands, is sponsoring negotiations for a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. In February 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague Conference created a Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (“the Special Commission”) to prepare a preliminary draft text of the convention, which is subject to a formal diplomatic negotiation open to member States of The Hague Conference. At its first session in June 2016, the Special Commission produced a Preliminary Draft Convention that contains general and specific provisions that would apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments arising from transnational intellectual property disputes. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeks public comments on the June 2016 Preliminary Draft Convention (the “Preliminary Draft”) as it relates to intellectual property matters.

    To assist the USPTO in determining the best way to address this topic, the USPTO will host a public meeting to obtain public input. The meeting will be open to the public and will provide a forum for discussion of the questions identified in this notice. Written comments in response to the questions set forth in this notice also are requested.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on January 12, 2017, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and ending at 4:00 p.m. EST.

    Public Meeting Registration Deadline: Registration to attend the public meeting in person or via webcast is required by January 5, 2017. Additionally, requests to participate in the public meeting as a speaker must be submitted in writing no later than December 29, 2016. See the “Event Registration Information” section of this notice for additional details on how to register and how to request to present as a speaker.

    Written Comments: Written comments must be received on or before January 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Event Address: The public meeting will be held in the USPTO Headquarters, Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), Madison Building (East), Second Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

    Written Comments: Interested parties are encouraged to file written comments electronically by email to [email protected] Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the Office of Policy and International Affairs, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Mail Stop International Affairs, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. Paper submissions should also include a CD or DVD containing the submission in MS Word®, WordPerfect®, or pdf format. CDs or DVDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the document. All personally identifiable information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. The USPTO will accept anonymous written comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    All comments received are part of the public record and will be available for public inspection without change via the USPTO's Web site at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/hague-conference-private-international-law and at the Office of the Director, Policy and International Affairs, located in Madison West, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, upon request. Because comments will be available for public inspection, information that is not desired to be made public, such as name, an address or phone number, etc., should not be included in the written comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the attention of Michael Shapiro, Senior Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, USPTO, by telephone at 571-272-9300, or by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Hague Conference is sponsoring negotiations for a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Following preparatory work on the draft convention by a Working Group beginning in 2012, in February 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague Conference established a Special Commission to prepare a preliminary draft convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. The first meeting of the Special Commission took place June 1-9, 2016, at The Hague, Netherlands. The second meeting of the Special Commission is scheduled to take place February 16-24, 2017, at The Hague. The text of the Preliminary Draft produced at the first session of the Special Commission, along with other documents relating to the convention is available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/judgments/special-commission1.

    Brief Summary of the Draft Convention

    The Preliminary Draft currently contains 16 articles organized into two chapters. Chapter I (Articles 1-3) sets forth the scope and definitions for the draft treaty. Chapter II (Articles 4-16) sets forth the basic rules governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments under the treaty.

    Scope, Exclusions From Scope, and Definitions

    The Preliminary Draft applies to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in a Contracting State of judgments relating to civil or commercial matters in another Contracting State (Article 1). The term “judgment” means any decision on the merits, including determinations of costs or expenses related to such decisions (Article 3). Judgments related to revenue, customs, and administrative matters are excluded from the scope of the Convention (Article 1) as well as more specific subject matter such as family law matters, wills and succession, and insolvency, but judgments related to intellectual property matters (Article 2) are not excluded.

    Bases for Recognition and Enforcement

    The Preliminary Draft requires that a judgment of a court in a Contracting State (the “State of origin”) be recognized and enforced in another Contracting State (the “requested State”) without reviewing its merits (Article 4). Recognition and enforcement, however, may be refused but only under the grounds set forth in the treaty. The Preliminary Draft sets forth the bases for recognition and enforcement of judgments (Article 5).

    Of particular importance to the intellectual property community are paragraphs 5(1)(k) and 5(1)(l), which set forth the bases for the recognition and enforcement of judgments for infringements of a patent, trademark, design, or other similar right, and judgments on the validity or infringement of a copyright or a related right, respectively. It should also be noted (subject to Article 6, discussed below), a judgment in such an infringement case might also be enforceable if one of the other bases for recognition and enforcement of the judgment set forth in Article 5 exists (for example, the person against whom recognition or enforcement is sought brought the claim on which the judgment is based) applies.

    Exclusive Bases for Recognition and Enforcement

    Notwithstanding Article 5, a judgment on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered is eligible for recognition and enforcement in a requested State “if and only if” the State of origin is the State where the deposit or registration took place, or is deemed to have taken place under an international or regional instrument (Article 6). Judgments on the validity of copyrights or related rights, however, are not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction rule in Article 6. The Preliminary Draft also lists several bases on which a court of a Contracting State may refuse to recognize and enforce foreign judgments (Article 7).

    Preliminary Questions

    The Preliminary Draft bars the recognition and enforcement of rulings on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, and designs, or other similar rights that arose as a preliminary question in courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6 (Article 8(1)). The Explanatory Note Providing Background on the Proposed Draft Text and Identifying Outstanding Issues (Prel. Doc. No. 2) provides the following example of a preliminary question: a ruling on the validity of a patent raised as a defense to an infringement claim (Prel. Doc. No. 2, para. 111). In such instances, however, a court may refuse or postpone the recognition or enforcement of a ruling on validity only (1) where the ruling is inconsistent with a judgment or a decision of a competent authority on the matter or (2) where the proceedings on validity took place in the State with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6 (Article 8(3)). A court may refuse to recognize a judgment “if, and to the extent that, it was based on” a ruling on registration or validity as a preliminary question by in courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction under Article 6.

    Damages and Other Remedies

    The Preliminary Draft allows the court of the requested State to refuse recognition and enforcement of judgment awarding damages if and to the extent that those damages (including exemplary or punitive damages) do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered (Article 9). The Preliminary Draft does not expressly address enforcement of judgments for injunctive relief. However, the Explanatory on the Preliminary Draft notes, without expressly mentioning injunctive relief, that “non-money judgments have been included in the scope of the Proposed Draft Text” (Prel. Doc. No 2, para. 52).

    Questions Posed

    The USPTO is seeking comments on the Preliminary Draft as it relates to intellectual property. Interested members of the public are invited to present written comments on any issues they believe to be relevant to protection of intellectual property or any aspect of the proposed Convention as it relates to intellectual property. Comments also are invited on any or all of the questions listed below.

    As used in the Preliminary Draft, the term “intellectual property rights” includes patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights or related rights. If your response does not apply to all of these intellectual property rights, please state the specific intellectual property right, or rights, to which your response applies. Other intellectual property rights that are outside the scope of the current text of the Preliminary Draft, such as trade secrets, are identified separately in this notice where appropriate.

    With respect to these and any other issues raised by the Preliminary Draft, in your responses, please: (1) Clearly identify the matter being addressed; (2) provide examples where appropriate; (3) identify any relevant legal authorities to support your comment; (4) indicate approaches and provisions that are unacceptable; and (5) express preferences for approaches, effective solutions to specific challenges, and drafting recommendations to address the matter being addressed.

    1. What are your experiences in having U.S. judgments involving intellectual property matters recognized and enforced in foreign courts?

    2. What are the benefits, if any, of increasing the recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments involving intellectual property matters in foreign courts through joining a multilateral treaty?

    3. What are your experiences in having foreign judgments recognized in U.S. courts, including on the basis of comity or under state statutes?

    4. What are the risks, if any, of increasing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments involving intellectual property matters by U.S. courts through joining a multilateral treaty?

    5. Are uniform rules for international enforcement of intellectual property judgments desirable?

    6. What impact, if any, would the territorial nature of intellectual property rights have on enforcing rights across borders?

    7. What impact, if any, would differences in procedural practices across borders have on enforcing intellectual property rights across borders?

    8. What impact, if any, would differences in substantive law have on enforcing intellectual property rights across borders?

    9. Would this convention have any disproportionate effects on a particular technology sector? If so, which ones and how?

    10. Please identity problems that could occur from recognizing or enforcing judgments rendered on intellectual property matters in other Contracting States that have policies or laws that are inconsistent with U.S. intellectual property laws and policies.

    11. Please identify any challenges with respect to enforcement in foreign courts of U.S. judgments, or in U.S. courts of foreign judgments, involving intellectual property matters.

    12. How often are U.S. nationals also foreign intellectual property owners who would then be able to use this Convention to have judgments they obtain in foreign courts enforced by U.S. courts? Would that be useful for U.S. nationals?

    13. What changes, if any, to U.S. law would be needed to implement the proposed convention? Please identify any drawbacks and/or advantages to such changes.

    14. What effect, if any, would the Preliminary Draft have on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital environment? In particular, should the language in the Preliminary Draft be revised to take into account issues that arise in connection with infringement and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet?

    Exclusions From Scope

    15. Should judgments on the validity and/or the infringements of intellectual property rights, other than copyright and related rights, be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please identify the specific intellectual property right at issue and the specific concerns, if any, raised by including it within the scope of this convention?

    16. Should judgments on the validity, ownership, subsistence, and/or the infringement of copyright and related rights be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please state the specific concerns, if any, raised by including copyrights or related rights within the scope of this convention.

    17. Should judgments on the validity or misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets be excluded from the scope of the treaty under Article 2(2)? Please state the specific concerns, if any, raised by including judgments on the validity or misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets within the scope of this convention.

    Bases for Recognition and Enforcement

    18. Should judgments on the infringement of intellectual property rights, other than copyright and related rights, be included as bases for recognition and enforcement in Article 5(1)(k)?

    19. Should judgments on the infringements of plant breeders' rights be included in Article 5(1)(k)?

    20. Should judgments on the infringements of service marks, trade dress, and geographical indications rights be expressly included in Article 5(1)(k)?

    21. Should judgments on the validity or infringement of unregistered designs and trademarks be included in Article 5(1)(l)?

    22. Should judgments on the validity or the misappropriation and/or theft of trade secrets be included in Article 5(1)(l)?

    23. Should the bracketed language in Article 5(1)(l) be included?

    24. Should judgments on the validity, ownership, subsistence or infringement of copyright or related rights be included in Article 5(1)(l) in cases where the right arose under the law of the State of origin?

    25. Should such judgments be included in Article 5(1)(l) where the right did not arise under the law of the State of origin but where another basis for jurisdiction set forth in Article 5 is satisfied?

    Exclusive Jurisdiction

    26. With respect to a judgment on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued, the Preliminary Draft provides for exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the State of origin where the right issued or registration took place, or is deemed to have taken place under an international or regional instrument (Article 6). Please comment on the appropriateness of this rule.

    27. Should a judgment on the registration or validity of mask works or vessel designs that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued be included in Article 6?

    Preliminary Matters

    28. What are your experiences in having U.S. rulings on preliminary questions, or judgments based on such rulings, involving the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, and designs, or other similar rights, by courts other than those with exclusive jurisdiction recognized and enforced by a foreign court?

    29. Should a judgment on the registration or validity of mask works or vessel designs that are required to be deposited, registered, or issued be included in Article 8?

    30. Does Article 8 provide an appropriate framework for resolving problems, if any, related to recognition and enforcement of rulings on preliminary questions and judgments based on such rulings?

    31. How much discretion should a court in the requested State have to refuse or postpone the recognition or enforcement of a ruling on the validity of a patent, trademark, design, and other similar rights raised as preliminary matter in a court in the State of origin?

    Remedies

    32. Article 9 provides that recognition or enforcement of a judgment may be refused if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered. Should the court in a requested State be allowed to recognize and enforce non-compensatory damages in judgments involving intellectual property matters?

    33. Does Article 9 include the types of damages that would provide effective relief for intellectual property right owners? If not, what other types of damages or other remedies ought to be included? Why?

    34. How should statutory damages for copyright infringement be treated under this Article, and should Article 9 be amended to address statutory damages expressly?

    35. When a judgment for infringement of an intellectual property covered by the convention includes injunctive relief, should a court in the requested State be required to recognize and enforce the award of injunctive relief?

    36. If so, should there be any limitation on the circumstances under which such awards should be recognized and enforced (for example, by specifying the limitation in Article 5)? If not, should a judgment for infringement of an intellectual property right covered by the convention that includes injunctive relief be excluded as a basis for recognition and enforcement, or whole or in part, under Article 5?

    Event Registration Information: To register to attend or to request to present as a speaker, please send an email message to [email protected] and provide the following information: (1) Your name, title, company or organization (if applicable), address, phone number, and email address; (2) whether you wish to attend in person or via webcast; and (3) whether you wish to make an oral presentation at the meeting and, if so, which question(s) identified in the supplementary information section of this notice will be addressed and the approximate desired length of your presentation. Each attendee, even if from the same organization, must register separately. In order to give all speakers a meaningful opportunity to speak, the USPTO may not be able to accommodate all persons who wish to make a presentation. However, the USPTO will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible who wish to make a presentation. After reviewing the speaker requests and the information regarding the presentations provided in the requests, the USPTO will contact each speaker prior to the event with the amount of time available and the approximate time that the speaker's presentation is scheduled to begin. The amount of time available for each speaker presentation and selected speakers without a formal presentation may be limited to ensure that all persons selected to speak will have a meaningful opportunity to do so. Speakers who opt to employ slides as part of their presentation must send final electronic copies of the slides in Microsoft PowerPoint® to [email protected] by January 5, 2017, so that the slides can be displayed at the meeting. Additionally, and only if time allows, the USPTO will provide an opportunity for persons in the audience, who did not register as speakers or were not selected as speakers, to speak at the meeting without a formal presentation. For more information on the meeting, including webcast access instructions, agenda, and a list of speakers, please visit USPTO's Web site at www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/hague-conference-private-international-law. If special accommodations due to a disability are needed, please inform the contact person(s) identified under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27799 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY; DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products previously furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: December 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s)— 7510-01-545-3778—DAYMAX System, 2015, Calendar Pad, Type II 7510-01-545-3782—DAYMAX System, 2015, Calendar Pad, Type I Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Anthony Wayne Rehabilitation Center for Handicapped and Blind, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27841 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 12/18/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled,1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    ADDITIONS

    On 9/23/2016 (81 FR 65629-65630), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

    Products Product Name(s) NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0208—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Smoke Gray NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0209—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Blue NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0210—File Folder, Expanding, 12 Tab, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Purple NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0212—File Storage Box, Expanding, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Black NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0216—File Storage Box, Expanding, 19 Tab, Alpha/Subject, Latch Closure, Pressboard and Kraft Paper, Black NSN: 7520-00-SAM-0218—File Folder, Expanding, 7 Tab with Pockets, Flap and Cord Closure, Polypropylene, Black Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Exceptional Children's Foundation, Culver City, CA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27820 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosures AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice regarding charges for certain disclosures under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) announces that the ceiling on allowable charges under section 612(f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) will remain unchanged at $12.00, effective for 2017. The Bureau is required to increase the $8.00 amount referred to in section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA on January 1 of each year, based proportionally on changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), with fractional changes rounded to the nearest fifty cents. The CPI-U increased 49.77 percent between September 1997, when the FCRA amendments took effect, and September 2016. This increase in the CPI-U, and the requirement that any increase be rounded to the nearest fifty cents, result in a maximum allowable charge of $12.00.

    DATES:

    Effective January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaclyn Maier, Counsel, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at (202) 435-7700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 612(f)(1)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) provides that a consumer reporting agency may charge a consumer a reasonable amount for making a disclosure to the consumer pursuant to section 609 of the FCRA. Section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA provides that, where a consumer reporting agency is permitted to impose a reasonable charge on a consumer for making a disclosure to the consumer pursuant to section 609 of the FCRA, the charge shall not exceed $8.00 and shall be indicated to the consumer before making the disclosure. Section 612(f)(2) of the FCRA states that the Bureau shall increase the $8.00 maximum amount on January 1 of each year, based proportionally on changes in the Consumer Price Index, with fractional changes rounded to the nearest fifty cents. The Bureau's calculations are based on the CPI-U, which is the most general Consumer Price Index and covers all urban consumers and all items.

    Section 612(a) of the FCRA gives consumers the right to a free disclosure upon request once every 12 months. The maximum allowable charge established by this notice does not apply to requests made under that provision. The charge does apply when a consumer who orders a file disclosure has already received a free annual disclosure and does not otherwise qualify for an additional free disclosure.

    The Bureau is using the $8.00 amount set forth in section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA as the baseline for its calculation of the increase in the ceiling on reasonable charges for certain disclosures made under section 609 of the FCRA. Since the effective date of section 612(a) was September 30, 1997, the Bureau calculated the proportional increase in the CPI-U from September 1997 to September 2016. The Bureau then determined what modification, if any, from the original base of $8.00 should be made effective for 2017, given the requirement that fractional changes be rounded to the nearest fifty cents.

    Between September 1997 and September 2016, the CPI-U increased by 49.77 percent from an index value of 161.2 in September 1997 to a value of 241.428 in September 2016. An increase of 49.77 percent in the $8.00 base figure would lead to a figure of $11.98. However, because the statute directs that the resulting figure be rounded to the nearest $0.50, the maximum allowable charge is $12.00. The Bureau therefore determines that the maximum allowable charge for the year 2017 will remain at $12.00, effective January 1, 2017.

    Dated: November 8, 2016. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27735 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License to Per Vivo Labs, Inc.; Kingsport, TN AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Per Vivo Labs, Inc.; a corporation having its principle place of business at 2002 Brookside Lane, Kingsport, TN 37660, an exclusive license.

    DATES:

    Written objections must be filed not later than 15 days following publication of this announcement.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written objections to U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technology Transfer and Outreach Office, RDRL-DPT/Thomas Mulkern, Building 321 Room 110, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Mulkern, (410) 278-0889, E-Mail: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army plans to grant an exclusive license to Per Vivo Labs, Inc., in the field of use related to physical therapy/rehabilitation resistance bands incorporating rate-actuated tethers (RATs) relative to the following:

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices”, US Patent No.: 9,303,717, Filing Date June 26, 2013, Issue Date April 5, 2016.

    • “Rate-Responsive, Stretchable Devices (Further Improvements)”, US Patent Application No.: 15/057,944, Filing Date March 1, 2016.

    The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i),. Competing applications completed and received by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive license.

    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27782 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee (LEAC). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. on Monday, December 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Three Forks Harbor, 5201 Three Forks Road, Fort Gibson, OK 74434.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jeff Knack; Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Committee, in writing at Eufaula Lake Office, 102 E. BK 200 Rd, Stigler, OK 74462-1829, or by email at [email protected], or by phone at 1-918-484-5135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR 102-3.150).

    Purpose of the Meeting: The Lake Eufaula Advisory Committee is an independent Federal advisory committee established as directed by Section 3133(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (WRDA 2007) (Pub. L. 110-114). The committee is advisory in nature only with duties to include providing information and recommendations to the Corps of Engineers regarding operations of Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma for project purposes. In accordance with Sections 3133(c)(2) and 3133(d)(1) of WRDA 2007, the committee will also provide recommendations on a reallocation study concerning current and future use of the Lake Eufaula storage capacity for authorized project purposes as well as a subsequent pool management plan.

    Agenda: This will be the second meeting of the LEAC. The committee will nominate a new committee member to replace the chair currently authorized for the Muscogee Creek Nation, have a question and answer session with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representatives about Eufaula Lake's development and management, discuss white papers generated from first meeting about what each member hopes to see this committee accomplish, and discuss future direction.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first-come basis. The Three Forks Harbor is readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. For additional information about public access procedures, contact Mr. Jeff Knack, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Committee, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Committee's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to Mr. Knack, the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least seven business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Committee. The Designated Federal Officer and the Committee Chair will review all timely submitted written comments or statements and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Committee before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Committee until its next meeting. Please note that because the LEAC operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Committee is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Committee during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Committee meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) days in advance to the Committee's Designated Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the addresses listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Designated Federal Officer will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Committee Chair determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Committee's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 15-minute period near the end of meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than three (3) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the Designated Federal Officer.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army <E T="04">Federal Register</E> Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27783 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal advisory committee meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. Public registration will begin at 8:45 a.m. For entrance into the meeting, you must meet the necessary requirements for entrance into the Pentagon. For more detailed information, please see the following link: http://www.pfpa.mil/access.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155. The meeting will be held in Room B7. The Pentagon Library is located in the Pentagon Library and Conference Center (PLC2) across the Corridor 8 bridge.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LTC Andrew Lunoff, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition), 3090 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3090, email: [email protected], phone: 571-256-9004.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Government-Industry Advisory Panel is unable to provide public notification, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a), for its meeting on Tuesday, November 29, 2016. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    Purpose of the Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Government-Industry Advisory Panel will review sections 2320 and 2321 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), regarding rights in technical data and the validation of proprietary data restrictions and the regulations implementing such sections, for the purpose of ensuring that such statutory and regulatory requirements are best structured to serve the interest of the taxpayers and the national defense. The scope of the panel is as follows: (1) Ensuring that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not pay more than once for the same work, (2) Ensuring that the DoD contractors are appropriately rewarded for their innovation and invention, (3) Providing for cost-effective reprocurement, sustainment, modification, and upgrades to the DoD systems, (4) Encouraging the private sector to invest in new products, technologies, and processes relevant to the missions of the DoD, and (5) Ensuring that the DoD has appropriate access to innovative products, technologies, and processes developed by the private sector for commercial use.

    Agenda: This will be the tenth meeting of the Government-Industry Advisory Panel with a series of meetings planned through December 14, 2016. The panel will cover details of 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321, begin understanding the implementing regulations and detail the necessary groups within the private sector and government to provide supporting documentation for their review of these codes and regulations during follow-on meetings. Agenda items for this meeting will include the following: (1) Final discussions and deliberations on 10 U.S.C. 2320 and 2321 tension points; (2) Report framework and collaboration; (3) Comment Adjudication and Planning for follow-on meeting.

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the agenda or any updates to the agenda for the November 29, 2016 meeting will be available as requested or at the following site: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=2561. It will also be distributed upon request.

    Minor changes to the agenda will be announced at the meeting. All materials will be posted to the FACA database after the meeting.

    Public Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Registration of members of the public who wish to attend the meeting will begin upon publication of this meeting notice and end three business days (November 23) prior to the start of the meeting. All members of the public must contact LTC Lunoff at the phone number or email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees should arrive at the Pentagon's Visitor's Center, located near the Pentagon Metro Station's south exit and adjacent to the Pentagon Transit Center bus terminal with sufficient time to complete security screening no later than 8:30 a.m. on November 29. To complete security screening, please come prepared to present two forms of identification of which one must be a pictured identification card. Government and military DoD CAC holders are not required to have an escort, but are still required to pass through the Visitor's Center to gain access to the Building. Seating is limited and is on a first-to-arrive basis. Attendees will be asked to provide their name, title, affiliation, and contact information to include email address and daytime telephone number to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any interested person may attend the meeting, file written comments or statements with the committee, or make verbal comments from the floor during the public meeting, at the times, and in the manner, permitted by the committee.

    Special Accommodations: The meeting venue is fully handicap accessible, with wheelchair access.

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting or seeking additional information about public access procedures, should contact LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Comments or Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel about its mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. Written comments or statements should be submitted to LTC Lunoff, the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. The comment or statement must include the author's name, title, affiliation, address, and daytime telephone number. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the committee DFO at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that they may be made available to the Government-Industry Advisory Panel for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the panel until its next meeting. Please note that because the panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection.

    Verbal Comments: Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the meeting only at the time and in the manner allowed herein. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least three (3) business days in advance to the committee DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the email address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The committee DFO will log each request to make a comment, in the order received, and determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the panel's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described in this paragraph, will be allotted no more than five (5) minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Dated: November 15, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27773 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Public Meetings for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for EA-18G “Growler” Airfield Operations at the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Complex, Washington AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy (DoN) has prepared and filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of adding up to 36 Growler aircraft at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Whidbey Island complex, and continuing and increasing Growler airfield operations. The NAS Whidbey Island complex is located in Island County, Washington, on Whidbey Island, in the northern Puget Sound region. The complex includes the main air station (Ault Field), which is in the north-central part of the island, adjacent to the city of Oak Harbor, and Outlying Landing Field (OLF) Coupeville. The OLF is approximately 10 miles south of Ault Field and is dedicated primarily to Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP).

    With the filing of the Draft EIS, the DoN is initiating an extended public comment period of 75 days, beginning on November 10, 2016 and ending on January 25, 2017. Public meetings are scheduled to inform the public and receive comments on the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIS. This notice announces the dates, times, and locations of the public meetings and provides supplementary information about the Draft EIS.

    DATES AND ADDRESSES:

    The DoN will hold public meetings to inform the public about the Draft EIS and the proposed action and alternatives under consideration and to provide opportunities for the public to comment on the Draft EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies and officials, Native American Indian Tribes and Nations, and interested organizations and individuals are encouraged to provide comments in person at the public meetings or in writing during the 75-day public review period. Public meetings will be held at the following dates, times, and locations:

    1. Monday, December 5, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Fort Worden State Park Conference Center, USO Hall, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend, Washington 98368.

    2. Tuesday, December 6, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at the Oak Harbor Elks Lodge Grande Hall, 155 NE Ernst Street, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277.

    3. Wednesday, December 7, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Lopez Center for Community and the Arts, 204 Village Road, Lopez Island, Washington 98261.

    4. Thursday, December 8, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Seafarers' Memorial Park Building, 601 Seafarers Way, Anacortes, Washington 98221.

    5. Friday, December 9, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., at the Coupeville High School Commons, 501 South Main Street, Coupeville, Washington 98239.

    The public meetings will be open house sessions with informational poster stations. Members of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions of DoN representatives and subject matter experts. Attendees will also be able to provide verbal comments to a stenographer or submit written comments during the public meetings. In addition to participating in the public meetings, members of the public may submit comments via the U.S. Postal Service using the mailing address identified in the contact information later in this notice or electronically using the project Web site (http://www.whidbeyeis.com). All comments made at the public meetings or postmarked or received online by January 25 will become part of the public record and be considered in the Final EIS.

    The DoN may release the city, state, and 5-digit zip code of individuals who provide comments during the Draft EIS public review period. However, the names, street addresses, email addresses and screen names, telephone numbers, or other personally identifiable information of those individuals will not be released by the DoN unless required by law. Prior to each commenter making verbal comments to the stenographer at the public meetings the commenter will be asked whether he/she agrees to a release of their personally identifiable information. Those commenters submitting written comments, either using comment forms or via the project Web site, will be asked whether they authorize release of personally identifiable information by checking a “release” box.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    EA-18G EIS Project Manager, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Atlantic, Attention: Code EV21/SS; 6506 Hampton Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia 23508.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 5, 2013, the DoN published a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (78 FR 54635) to analyze the potential addition of 13 Growler aircraft to the existing Growler community stationed at NAS Whidbey Island. A revised NOI was published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2014 (79 FR 61296), which modified the proposed action by increasing the number of aircraft analyzed to 36 in order to account for the possible procurement of additional aircraft. Comments received during the two scoping periods were used to shape the analysis contained in the Draft EIS.

    The DoN's proposed action is to: (1) Continue and expand existing Growler operations at Ault Field and OLF Coupeville; (2) increase capabilities to accommodate up to 36 additional aircraft, including the construction and renovation of facilities at Ault Field; (3) support flight operations of other aircraft, and (4) station additional personnel in the region.

    The purpose of the proposed action is to augment the DoN's existing Electronic Attack community at NAS Whidbey Island by operating additional Growler aircraft as appropriated by Congress. The DoN needs to effectively and efficiently increase electronic attack capabilities in order to counter increasingly sophisticated threats and provide more aircraft per squadron in order to give operational commanders more flexibility in addressing future threats and missions. The need for the proposed action is to maintain and expand Growler operational readiness to support national defense requirements under Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 5062.

    In developing the proposed range of alternatives that meet the purpose of and need for the proposed action, the DoN carefully reviewed important considerations unique to the Growler community that is single-sited at NAS Whidbey Island, as well as Growler squadron training in light of Title 10 responsibilities; existing training requirements and regulations; existing DoN infrastructure; and Chief of Naval Operations guidance to support operating Naval Forces. Furthermore, the DoN evaluated past home basing decisions, reconsidered alternatives previously eliminated from analysis, and thoughtfully considered basing and training options suggested by the public during the two scoping periods. The Draft EIS explains the DoN's reasons for eliminating some alternatives and suggested options from further consideration. In addition, the Draft EIS explains why some alternatives presented in the October 10, 2014 revised NOI were not carried forward.

    The action alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS vary in terms of force structure and operations to accommodate the proposed increase in Growler aircraft. In addition, three operational scenarios (sub-alternatives) are evaluated, all of which focus on the distribution of annual FCLP airfield operations between Ault Field and OLF Coupeville.

    In addition to the action alternatives, the DoN evaluated the potential environmental effects of the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, the proposed action would not occur. Although the No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of or need for the proposed action, the conditions associated with the No Action Alternative serve as reference points for describing and quantifying the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed action alternatives. For this Draft EIS, the DoN is using the year 2021 for the No Action Alternative because it represents conditions when events at Ault Field affecting aircraft loading, facility and infrastructure assets, personnel levels, and number of aircraft are expected to be fully implemented and complete from previous aircraft home basing, aircraft retirement, and other related decisions.

    The Draft EIS provides an analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed action on the following resources: Airspace and airfield operations; noise; public health and safety; air quality; land use; cultural resources; American Indian traditional resources; biological resources; water resources; socioeconomics; environmental justice; transportation; infrastructure; geological resources; hazardous materials and wastes; and climate change and greenhouse gases. Consultation with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is pending. The Navy will also engage in consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Native American Tribes and Nations.

    The Draft EIS was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies and elected officials, Native American Indian Tribes and Nations, and other interested individuals and organizations. The Draft EIS is available for public electronic viewing or download at the project Web site (http://www.whidbeyeis.com). A paper copy of the Draft EIS may be reviewed at 22 public libraries in the northern Puget Sound region. The full list of and addresses for each of the libraries may be found at the project Web site.

    To be included on the DoN's mailing list for future updates on the EIS, submit a request electronically using the project Web site or submit a written request to the address previously identified for further information. The same policy for release of personally identifiable information as identified above will be maintained by the DoN for individuals requesting to be included on the EIS mailing list.

    Dated: November 9, 2016. C.D. Mora, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27827 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2082-062; Project No. 2082-063; Project No. 14803-000; Project No. 14803-001] PacifiCorp, Klamath River Renewal Corporation; Notice of Applications Filed With the Commission

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:

    a. Types of Applications: Application for Amendment and Partial Transfer of License; Application for Surrender of License.

    b. Project Nos.: 2082-062 and 14803-000 (amendment and transfer application); 2082-063 and 14803-001 (surrender application).

    c. Date Filed: September 23, 2016.

    d. Applicants: For license amendment and transfer: PacifiCorp (transferor) and Klamath River Renewal Corporation (transferee).

    For license surrender: Klamath River Renewal Corporation.

    e. Name of Projects: Klamath Project (P-2082).

    Lower Klamath Project (P-14803).

    f. Locations: Klamath Project—on the Klamath River in Klamath County, Oregon, and on the Klamath River and Fall Creek in Siskiyou County, California. The project includes about 477 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management.

    Lower Klamath Project—on the Klamath River in Klamath County, Oregon, and Siskiyou County, California. The project would include about 395 acres of federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicants Contact: Sarah Kamman, Vice President and General Counsel, PacifiCorp, 825 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 2000, Portland, OR 97232, (503) 813-5865, sarah [email protected]

    Michael Carrier, President, Klamath River Renewal Corporation, 423 Washington Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, (415) 820-4441, [email protected]

    i. FERC Contacts: Amendment and Transfer: Steve Hocking, (202) 502-8753, [email protected]

    Surrender: John Mudre: (202) 502-8902, [email protected]

    j. Description of Amendment and Transfer Request: The applicants request that the Commission transfer the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments of the existing Klamath Project No. 2082 from PacifiCorp to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (Renewal Corporation) and create a new project, the Lower Klamath Project, for the transferred developments with the Renewal Corporation as the sole licensee. PacifiCorp requests that the license for Project No. 2082 be amended to delete references to the four transferred developments. The applicants state that they will make a supplemental filing on or before March 1, 2017, demonstrating the legal, technical, and financial capabilities of the Renewal Corporation to perform its responsibilities as transferee. Applicants further request that the Commission act on the amendment and transfer application by December 31, 2017, and allow the Renewal Corporation six months from the issuance date of the order approving transfer to submit proof of its acceptance of license transfer.

    k. Description of Surrender Request: The Renewal Corporation's request to surrender and decommission the Lower Klamath Project, including removal of the project dams is contingent upon a Commission order amending PacifiCorp's existing Klamath Project (P-2082) license to create a new project, the Lower Klamath Project, and transferring the Lower Klamath Project to the Renewal Corporation, as described in item (j), above. The Lower Klamath Project, as envisioned by the Renewal Corporation, would consist of the J.C. Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate developments of the existing Klamath Project No. 2082, and the Renewal Corporation would be the sole licensee. The Renewal Corporation requests that the Commission not act on this request until it is ready to accept license transfer and states that it will file, by December 31, 2017, its decommissioning plan to serve as the basis for Commission staff's environmental and engineering review of the surrender application. Because only a licensee may file to surrender a license and the Commission does not accept contingent applications, the surrender application is deemed to be filed by both PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation. See 18 CFR 6.1 and 4.32(j). Therefore, while action on the amendment and transfer application is pending, the Commission will maintain both applications in the dockets for both project numbers. If the Commission approves the transfer and the Renewal Corporation accepts the license, following which the Renewal Corporation would become the sole licensee, the surrender proceeding would continue solely in Project No. 14803.

    l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the California and Oregon State Historic Preservation Officers, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR part 800.

    m. With this notice, we are designating PacifiCorp and the Renewal Corporation as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council's regulations at 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4).

    n. Locations of the Applications: Copies of the applications are available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. These filings may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. Copies are also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item (h), above.

    o. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list for these proceedings should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    p. Additional Information: We are not requesting comments at this time. After receiving the applicants' supplemental filings on or before March 1, 2017, for the license transfer and December 31, 2017, for the surrender, the Commission will issue notices requesting comments, protests, and motions to intervene.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
    [FR Doc. 2016-27806 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 12514-074] Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Northern Indiana Public Service Company's application for amendment of the license for the Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 12514-074), on the Tippecanoe River near the city of Monticello in Carroll and White Counties, Indiana, and prepared a final environmental assessment (EA) for the project. The project does not occupy any federal lands.

    The final EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed modified definition of abnormal flow conditions that would be included in a revised article 403, which defines the operation of the project. Staff concludes that authorizing the amendment, with staff's recommended modification to the definition of abnormal river conditions, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, contact Mark Pawlowski at 202-502-6052.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27807 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-30-000.

    Applicants: Kelly Creek Wind, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Kelly Creek Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20161109-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1193-002.

    Applicants: West Deptford Energy, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20161107-5254.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1682-005.

    Applicants: TransCanyon DCR, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Formula Rate Template Compliance Filing to be effective 7/6/2015.

    Filed Date: 11/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20161109-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-336-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Mount Dora NITSA-NOA Amendment SA No. 151 to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5060.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR17-1-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amendments to the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council Regional Reliability Standard Development Process Manual.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5072.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27809 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-243-000] Lawrenceburg Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Lawrenceburg Power, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27815 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-029.

    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5226.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1990-001.

    Applicants: North Star Solar PV LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of North Star Solar PV LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20161109-5177.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2298-002.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: DEK Revised RS No. 14 Filing to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-340-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Service Agreement No. 916 and cancellation of Service Agmt No. 911 to be effective 11/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5178.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-341-000.

    Applicants: James River Genco, LLC.

    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of Tariff Deadlines and Request for Expedited Action of James River Genco, LLC.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-342-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3281 Mountrail-Williams Electric and Otter Tail Inter Agr to be effective 11/7/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-343-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2252R5 Cottonwood Wind Project GIA to be effective 10/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH17-3-000.

    Applicants: GIC (Ventures) Pte. Ltd.

    Description: GIC (Ventures) Pte. Ltd. submits FERC 65-B Material Change in Facts of Waiver Notification.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5217.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: PH17-4-000.

    Applicants: Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C.

    Description: Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C. submits FERC 65-B Material Change in Facts of Waiver Notification.

    Filed Date: 11/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20161109-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/30/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27754 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-318-000] Three Peaks Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Three Peaks Power, LLCs application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27803 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-66-000] Midwest Generation, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 14, 2016, Midwest Generation, LLC submitted tariff filing per: Refund Report to be effective N/A, pursuant to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) October 11, 2016 Order.1

    1Order Directing Refunds, 157 FERC ¶ 61,016 (2016).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 5, 2016.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27801 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 271-146] Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-project use of project lands and water.

    b. Project No: 271-146.

    c. Date Filed: October 11, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Entergy Arkansas Inc. (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Carpenter-Remmel Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: Lake Catherine in Garland County, Arkansas.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Eugene Knighten, Manager, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., 141 West County Line Road, Malvern, Arkansas 72104; phone (501) 844-2168.

    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Joy Kurtz at 202-502-6760, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-271-146.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission approval to grant the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas permission to use project lands and water within the project boundary to increase its discharge of treated sewage effluent from the Hot Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant into Lake Catherine from the currently-approved 12 million gallons per day (mgd) to 16 mgd. There are no physical improvements or additions to the treatment plant proposed within the project boundary, hence no ground-disturbing work is necessary within the project boundary to facilitate the discharge increase. All discharge would be subject to meeting the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's discharge permit requirements. The increase in discharge is necessary to support the growth of the City of Hot Springs and its service area.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling 202-502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call 202-502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”; “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the non-project use application. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27805 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-27-000.

    Applicants: American Falls Solar, LLC.

    Description: American Falls Solar, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5161.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-28-000.

    Applicants: American Falls Solar II, LLC.

    Description: American Falls Solar II, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5163.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-337-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Change to Natural Gas Price Index to be effective 1/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-338-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Supply and Voltage Control Amendment_Lightstone to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-339-000.

    Applicants: 96WI 8ME, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 96WI 8ME Initial MBR Application and Request for Expedited Consideration to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27811 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-245-000] Waterford Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Waterford Power, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27816 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-13-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-547); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 49970, 7/29/2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-547 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0084, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC16-13-000, by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0084.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-547 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements) to implement the statutory refund provisions governed by Sections 4, 5 and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).1 Sections 4 and 5 authorize the Commission to order a refund (with interest) for any portion of a natural gas company's increased rate or charge found to be unjust or unreasonable. Refunds may also be instituted by a natural gas company as a stipulation to a Commission-approved settlement agreement or a provision under the company's tariff. Section 16 of the NGA authorizes the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to administer its refund mandates. The Commission's refund reporting requirements are located in 18 CFR 154.501 and 154.502.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

    The Commission uses the data to monitor refunds owed by natural gas companies to ensure that the flow-through of refunds owed by these companies are made as expeditiously as possible and to assure that refunds are made in compliance with the Commission's regulations.

    Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden 2 : The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    2 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    3 The cost is based on FERC's 2016 average cost (salary plus benefits) of $74.50/hour. The Commission staff believes that the industry's level and skill set is comparable to FERC.

    FERC-547—Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of Responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • and cost per
  • response 3
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) Natural Gas Pipelines 11 1 11 75 hrs.; $5,587.50 825 hrs.; $61,462.50 $5,587.50

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27804 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-256-000] Darby Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Darby Power, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27802 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3145-007; ER10-3116-007; ER10-3120-007; ER11-2036-007; ER13-1544-004; ER16-930-001; ER10-3128-007; ER10-1800-008; ER10-3136-007; ER11-2701-009; ER10-1728-007.

    Applicants: AES Alamitos, LLC, AES Energy Storage, LLC, AES Laurel Mountain, LLC, AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C., AES ES Tait, LLC, AES Ohio Generation, LLC, AES Redondo Beach, L.L.C., Indianapolis Power and Light Company, Mountain View Power Partners, LLC, Mountain View Power Partners IV, LLC, The Dayton Power and Light Company.

    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2016 Triennial Market Power Analysis for Southwestern Region of AES MBR Affiliates.

    Filed Date: 11/10/16.

    Accession Number: 20161110-5238.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1706-000.

    Applicants: Newark Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report re EL15-97 et al. to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1346-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-11-14_SA 2911 LEPA-MISO External NRIS (J373) Compliance to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5329.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1817-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-11-14_Attachment X_E-NRIS Compliance Filing to be effective 4/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5328.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2187-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-11-14_Schedule 2 Rule to Show Cause Follow-Up Compliance EL16-61 to be effective 6/22/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-54-001.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: EDF Trading MDUSA Rev 1 Amendment to be effective 10/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-344-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-TSGT-E&P-420-0.1.0-NOC to be effective 11/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5162.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-345-000.

    Applicants: Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Chisholm View Wind Project, LLC Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 11/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-346-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ISA No. 4095 and CSAs, SA Nos. 4107 and 4567, Queue No. Z2-060/AA2-170 to be effective 10/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5295.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-347-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cancellation of Schedule 10—Michigan—Ontario Interface to be effective 11/14/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5312.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-348-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a DTIA with the City of Stanhope to be effective 1/13/2017.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5314.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-349-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Designated Entity Agreement No. 4579, Projects b2743 and b2752 to be effective 11/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/14/16.

    Accession Number: 20161114-5331.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27755 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-196-000] Pima Energy Storage System, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request For Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Pima Energy Storage System, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27813 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-242-000] Gavin Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Gavin Power, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is November 30, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27814 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-11-000] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on November 3, 2016 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas), 5151 San Felipe, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77056 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to construct and operate certain natural gas storage facilities located in Jackson County, West Virginia. Specifically, Columbia proposes to construct and operate three new storage wells and related pipeline to tie the wells into existing pipelines at Columbia's Ripley Storage Field. It is estimated that the three new directional wells will provide a combined total of 15 MMcf per day of improved deliverability to the Columbia system, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Robert D. Jackson, Manager, Certificates & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002, by calling (832) 320-5487, or by fax (832) 320-6487, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with he Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27812 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-12-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-511, FERC-515, & FERC-574); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collections [FERC-511 (Transfer of Electric License), FERC-515 (Rules of Practice and Procedure: Declaration of Intention), and FERC-574 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 45145, 7/12/2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-511, the FERC-515, or the FERC-574 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0069 (FERC-511), 1902-0079 (FERC-515), or 1902-0116 (FERC-574) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC16-12-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-511, Transfer of Electric License

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0069.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-511 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the requirements of FERC-511 to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 4(e) and 8 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).1 Section 4(e) authorizes the Commission to issue licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance of reservoirs, powerhouses, and transmission lines or other facilities necessary for the development and improvement of navigation and for the development, transmission, and utilization of power.2 Section 8 of the FPA provides that the voluntary transfer of any license is made only with the written approval of the Commission. Any successor to the licensee may assign the rights of the original licensee but is subject to all of the conditions of the license. The information filed with the Commission is a mandatory requirement contained in the format of a written application for transfer of license, executed jointly by the parties of the proposed transfer. The sale or merger of a licensed hydroelectric project may occasion the transfer of a license. The Commission's staff uses the information collection to determine the qualifications of the proposed transferee to hold the license and to prepare the transfer of the license order. Approval by the Commission of transfer of a license is contingent upon the transfer of title to the properties under license, delivery of all license instruments, and evidence that such transfer is in the public interest. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 9.

    1 16 U.S.C. 797(e) and 801.

    2 Refers to facilities across, along, from, or in any of the streams or other bodies of water over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, or upon any part of public lands and reservations of the United States, or for the purpose of utilizing the surplus water or water power from any Government dam.

    Type of Respondents: Hydropower Project Licensees.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-511—Transfer of Electric License Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden hrs.
  • & cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Hydropower Project Licensees 46 1 46 40 hrs.; $2,980 1,840 hrs.; $137,080 $2,980
    FERC-515, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Declaration of Intention

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0079.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-515 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the requirements of FERC-515 to implement the statutory provisions of Section 23(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).3 Section 23(b) authorizes the Commission to make a determination as to whether it has jurisdiction over a proposed water project 4 not affecting navigable waters 5 but across, along, over, or in waters over which Congress has jurisdiction under its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. Section 23(b) requires that any person intending to construct project works on such waters must file a declaration of their intention with the Commission. If the Commission finds the proposed project will have an impact on interstate or foreign commerce, then the entity intending to construct the project must obtain a Commission license or exemption before starting construction.6 The information is collected in the form of a written application, containing sufficient details to allow the Commission staff to research the jurisdictional aspects of the project. This research includes examining maps and land ownership records to establish whether or not there is Federal jurisdiction over the lands and waters affected by the project. A finding of non-jurisdictional by the Commission eliminates a substantial paperwork burden for the applicant who might otherwise have to file for a license or exemption application. The Commission implements these filing requirements under 18 CFR part 24.

    3 16 U.S.C. 817

    4 Dams or other project works. (See 16 U.S.C. 817.)

    5 See 16 U.S.C. 796 (8) for the definition of “Navigable Waters.”

    6 Upon a finding of non-jurisdictional by the Commission, and if the project does not utilize surplus water or waterpower from a government dam and no public lands or reservations are affected, permission is granted upon compliance with State laws.

    Type of Respondents: Persons intending to construct project works on certain waters described above.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-515—Rules of Practice and Procedure: Declaration of Intention Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden hrs.
  • & cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 6 1 6 80 hrs.; $5,960 480 hrs.; $35,760 $5,960
    FERC-574, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0116.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-574 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the requirements of FERC-574 to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 1(c), 4 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).7 Natural gas pipeline companies file applications with the Commission furnishing information in order to facilitate a determination of an applicant's qualification for an exemption under the provisions of the Section 1(c). If the Commission grants exemption, the natural gas pipeline company is not required to file certificate applications, rate schedules, or any other applications or forms prescribed by the Commission.

    7 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

    The exemption applies to companies engaged in the transportation, sale, or resale of natural gas in interstate commerce if: (a) They receive gas at or within the boundaries of the state from another person at or within the boundaries of that state; (b) such gas is ultimately consumed in such state; (c) the rates, service and facilities of such company are subject to regulation by a State Commission; and (d) that such State Commission is exercising that jurisdiction. 18 CFR part 152 specifies the data required to be filed by pipeline companies for an exemption.

    Type of Respondents: Pipeline companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-574—Gas Pipeline Certificates: Hinshaw Exemption Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden hrs.
  • & cost per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • & total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Pipeline Companies 1 1 1 60 hrs.; $4,470 60 hrs.; $4,470 $4,470
    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27808 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD16-25-000] Utilization In the Organized Markets of Electric Storage Resources as Transmission Assets Compensated Through Transmission Rates, for Grid Support Services Compensated in Other Ways, and for Multiple Services; Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On November 9, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff convened a technical conference to discuss the utilization of electric storage resources as transmission assets compensated through transmission rates, for grid support services that are compensated in other ways, and for multiple services.

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics discussed in the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued in this proceeding on November 1, 2016 (Supplemental Notice), including the questions listed therein. Commenters need not respond to all topics or questions asked. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the organization of the topics and questions in the Supplemental Notice. Commenters may reference material previously filed in this docket, including the technical conference transcript, but are encouraged to submit new or additional information rather than reiterate information that is already in the record. In particular, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide examples in support of their answers. These comments are due within 30 days of the date of this notice.

    For more information about this notice, please contact:

    Rahim Amerkhail (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8266, [email protected] Heidi Nielsen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8435, [email protected] Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8004, [email protected] Dated: November 14, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27753 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0577; FRL-9953-55] Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations To Terminate Certain Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by the registrants to voluntarily cancel their registrations and to amend product registrations to terminate uses.

    EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled and uses terminated only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0577, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Green, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 347-0367; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of requests from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products and amend product registrations to terminate certain uses. The affected products and the registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1-3 of this unit.

    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register canceling and amending the affected registrations.

    Table 1—Product Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation Registration No. Company No. Product name Active ingredient 100-951 100 Hurricane Metalaxyl-M & Fludioxonil. 100-1051 100 Talon-G Rodenticide Bait Pack Pellets with Bitrex Brodifacoum. 100-1052 100 Talon-G Rodenticide Pellets with Bitrex Brodifacoum. 100-1057 100 Talon-G Rodenticide Mini-Pellets with Bitrex Brodifacoum. 100-1064 100 Diquat Weed Killer 'D' Diquat dibromide. 100-1095 100 Lambda-Cyhalothrin TC Insecticide Lambda-Cyhalothrin. 100-1114 100 Rapid Kill #1 Diquat dibromide. 100-1115 100 Rapid Kill #1 Concentrate Diquat dibromide. 100-1143 100 Touchdown Ready-To-Use Herbicide Glyphosate. 100-1144 100 Touchdown Home and Garden Concentrate Glyphosate. 100-1170 100 Optigard ZT Insecticide Thiamethoxam. 100-1180 100 Touchdown Diquat Home and Garden Ready To Use Diquat dibromide & Glyphosate. 100-1209 100 Abamectin Granular Fire Ant Killer Abamectin. 100-1302 100 Cypermethrin ME 2.0% Concentrate Cypermethrin. 100-1303 100 Cypermethrin ME 0.2% RTU Cypermethrin. 100-1329 100 Glyphosate Diquat Prodiamine EW RTU Glyphosate, Diquat dibromide & Prodiamine. 100-1331 100 Prodiamine/Diquat/Glyphosate EW Concentrate Diquat dibromide, Prodiamine & Glyphosate. 100-1332 100 Prodiamine/Diquat/Glyphosate EW Manufacturing use Concentrate Diquat dibromide, Glyphosate & Prodiamine. 100-1355 100 Departure Herbicide Glyphosate. 100-1393 100 Hurricane WDG Fludioxonil & Metalaxyl-M. 100-1403 100 Glyphosate 500 Glyphosate. 100-1429 100 Foxfire Herbicide Pinoxaden & Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl. 228-679 228 ETI 107 02 G Paclobutrazol. 228-680 228 ETI 107 01 G Paclobutrazol. 279-3195 279 Authority First Herbicide Sulfentrazone. 279-3231 279 Gauntlet Sulfentrazone & Cloransulam-methyl. 279-3247 279 Gauntlet 70 WP Herbicide Sulfentrazone & Cloransulam-methyl. 352-713 352 DuPont Sulfentrazone XP Herbicide Sulfentrazone. 499-497 499 Whitmire Micro-Gen TC 232 D-Limonene. 499-508 499 TC 246 Imazalil. 499-519 499 TC 232 W&H D-Limonene. 2724-819 2724 Pyrocide Pressurized Ant & Roach Spray 70451 Propoxur, Pyrethrins, Piperonyl butoxide & MGK 264. 2792-45 2792 No Scald DPA EC-283 Diphenylamine (Not selected for InertFinder). 5905-583 5905 HM-0739 2,4-D, diethanolamine salt, Benzoic acid, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy-, compd with 2,2′-iminobis(ethanol) (1:1) & 3-Quinolinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-, monoammonium salt. 7969-341 7969 Cando Limonene Wasp & Hornet Jet Spray D-Limonene. 7969-344 7969 Cando Limonene Indoor/Outdoor Multi-Insect Spray D-Limonene. 9688-307 9688 TAT Total Release Water Based Fogger MGK 264, Tetramethrin & Esfenvalerate. 35935-101 35935 Azoxystrobin Technical Azoxystrobin. 59639-80 59639 Valent Bolero 10 G (Herbicide) Thiobencarb. 61282-01 61282 Technical Diphacinone Diphacinone. 61282-03 61282 Zinc Phosphide 93 Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2). 61282-20 61282 Zinc Phosphide Corn Bait Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2). 61842-20 61842 Layby Pro Herbicide Diuron & Linuron. 61842-21 61842 Linex 4L Herbicide Linuron. 61842-22 61842 Linuron Technical Linuron. 61842-23 61842 Lorox DF Linuron. 61842-24 61842 Linuron Flake Technical Linuron. 61842-32 61842 Linuron Technical Linuron. 66222-32 66222 Captan Technical Captan. 66330-260 66330 Flomet 4L Fluometuron. 67760-43 67760 Cheminova Methyl Parathion 4 EC Methyl parathion. 70506-180 70506 Accelerate a Harvest Aid for Cotton Endothall, mono(N,N,-dimethyl alkyl amine) salt. 70506-190 70506 Desicate II Endothall, mono(N,N,-dimethyl alkyl amine) salt. 70506-296 70506 Thinrite Blossom Thinner Endothal-dipotassium. 70506-297 70506 UPI Captan Technical Captan. 82437-1 82437 K & W Agrochemicals 5-15-5 with Gro-Root Liquid (GRL) Root & Transplant Stimulator with 2 Hormones 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid & Indole-3-butyric acid. 82437-3 82437 Kingro RTU (Ready-to-use) Cytokinin (as kinetin). 82437-4 82437 Rootaid Gel Indole-3-butyric acid. 82437-6 82437 Prostim L Indole-3-butyric acid & Cytokinin (as kinetin). 82437-8 82437 Prostim II Cytokinin (as kinetin) & Indole-3-butyric acid. 88342-1 88342 Odor Rescue Sodium chlorite. 89461-2 89461 Shiner Concentrated Shock Granules Trichloro-s-triazinetrione. 89461-3 89461 Shiner Dichlor Shock Granules Sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate. CO-010006 10163 Hexygon WDG Hexythiazox. SC-140001 59639 V-10233 Herbicide Flumioxazin & Pyroxasulfone. WA-060021 10163 Onager 1E Hexythiazox. Table 2—Product Registrations With Pending Requests for Amendment Registration No. Company No. Product name Active ingredient Uses to be terminated 100-1093 100 Heritage Fungicide Azoxystrobin Artichoke, Globe, Bananas, Plantains (post-harvest uses only), Barley, Canola, Carrots, Corn, Cotton, Cranberry, Grasses (grown for seed), Legume vegetables, dry and succulent, Oilseed crops, Peanuts, Potatoes, Rice, Soybean, Tobacco, Vegetable, leaves of root and tubers, Vegetable, root subgroup, Vegetable, tuberous and corm subgroup, Watercress, Wheat, Triticale & Indoor residual mold spray (use on carpet; wood and drywall; hard, non-porous surfaces). 100-1218 100 Demon Max Insecticide Cypermethrin Remove the directions for use for material protection. Remove the section entitled, Treatment of Preconstruction Lumber and Logs. 264-736 264 Bayleton Technical Fungicide Triadimefon Pineapple. 264-740 264 Bayleton 50% Concentrate Triadimefon Pineapple. 2792-45 2792 No Scald DPA EC-283 Diphenylamine (Not selected for InertFinder) Pear use. 6218-45 6218 Pyrethrins Fogging Concentrate II MGK 264, Piperonyl butoxide & Pyrethrins Outdoor Use, all outdoor uses except building perimeters (spot treatments). 43410-33 43410 Chem-Tek 100 Thiabendazole In or on paints, nylon carpeting & canvas textiles. 70506-179 70506 Ziram Manufacturing Use Product Ziram Blackberries. 85678-8 85678 Captan Technical Captan Turf Use. 85678-13 85678 Captan 4L Captan Turf Use. 85678-14 85678 Captan 80 WDG Captan Turf Use. 85678-28 85678 Captan Technical II Captan Turf Use. 87290-61 87290 Willowood Mesotrione 4SC Mesotrione Directions for use on soybeans. 87290-62 87290 Willowood Mesotrione 480SC Mesotrione Directions for use on soybeans.

    Table 3 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for the registrants of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.

    Table 3—Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and/or Amendments EPA company No. Company name and address 100 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. 228 NuFarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Pkwy., Ste. 101, Morrisville, NC 27560. 264 Bayer CropScience, LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 279 FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 352 E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (S300/419), Attn: Manager, U.S. Registration, Dupont Crop Protection, Chestnut Run Plaza, 974 Centre Road, P.O. Box 2915, Wilmington, DE 19805. 499 BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. 2724 Wellmark International, 1501 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 200 West, Schaumburg, IL 60173. 2792 Decco US Post-Harvest, Inc., 1713 South California Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016-0120. 5905 Helena Chemical Company, Agent Name: Helena Products Group, 7664 Smythe Farm Road, Memphis, TN 38120. 6218 Summit Chemical Co., 8322 Sharon Drive, Frederick, MD 21704. 7969 BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. 9688 Chemsico, A Division of United Industries Corp., P.O. Box 142642, St. Louis, MO 63114-0642. 10163 Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. 35935 NuFarm Limited, Agent Name: NuFarm Americas, Inc., 4020 Aerial Center Pkwy., Ste. 103, Morrisville, NC 27560. 43410 Agri-Chem Consulting, Inc., 27536 CR 561, Tavares, FL 32778. 59639 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 61282 Hacco, Inc., 110 Hopkins Drive, Randolph, WI 53956-1316. 61842 Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., Agent Name: Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th Street Ct NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 66222 Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., D/B/A Adama, 3120 Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. 66330 Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. 67760 Cheminova, Inc., 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209. 70506 United Phosphorus, Inc., Agent Name: Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., 4110 136th Street Ct NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98332. 82437 K & W Agrichemicals, Inc., Agent Name: Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707-0640. 85678 Redeagle International, LLC, Agent Name: Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707. 87290 Willowood, LLC, Agent Name: Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 640, Hockessin, DE 19707-0640. 88342 CLO2 Systems, 3427 Pearl Road, Medina, OH 44256. 89461 Global Chem Tech, LLC, 34 Lake Havasu Avenue N.—14-204, Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403. III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register.

    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(B)) requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)(C)) requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or

    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.

    The registrants listed in Table 3 of Unit II have requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed requests.

    IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Requests

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product cancellation or use termination should submit the withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling.

    V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products that are currently in the United States and that were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the action. If the requests for voluntary cancellation and amendments to terminate uses are granted, the Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register.

    In any order issued in response to these requests for cancellation of product registrations and for amendments to terminate uses, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Unit II.

    For voluntary product cancellations, registrants will be permitted to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 (7 U.S.C. 136o) or for proper disposal.

    Once EPA has approved the product labels reflecting the requested amendments to terminate uses, registrants will be permitted to sell or distribute the products under the previously approved labeling for a period of 18 months after the date of Federal Register publication of the cancellation order, unless other restrictions have been imposed. Thereafter, the registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing the products whose labels include the terminated uses identified in Table 2 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 13, 2016. Delores J. Barber, Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27865 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0317; FRL-9955-18] Registration Review; Draft Malathion Human Health Risk Assessment; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of September 22, 2016 (81 FR 65355) (FRL-9952-53), opening a 60-day comment period for the draft malathion human health risk assessment. This document extends that comment period for 30 days. The new closing date will be December 21, 2016 rather than November 21, 2016. The comment period is being extended in response to a request from FMC Corporation citing the scope and complexity of the assessments, including the use of new models, risk assessment approaches, and science policy issues that require additional review time.

    DATES:

    Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0317, must be received on or before December 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of September 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document extends the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of September 22, 2016. In that document, EPA opened a 60-day comment period for a draft human health risk assessment for the registration review of malathion. EPA is hereby extending the closing date of the comment period by 30 days from November 21, 2016, to December 21, 2016.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of September 22, 2016. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 10, 2016. Linda Arrington, Acting Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27867 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9030-3] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 11/07/2016 Through 11/11/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

    Notice:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html EIS No. 20160269, Draft, USAF, IN, KC-46A Third Main Operating Base (MOB-3) Beddown, Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Hamid Kamalpour 210-925-3001 EIS No. 20160270, Final, FTA, WA, Federal Way Link Extension, Review Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Daniel Drais 206-220-7954 EIS No. 20160271, Draft, BLM, ID, Bruneau-Owyhee Sage-Grouse Habitat Project (BOSH), Comment Period Ends: 01/03/2017, Contact: Michael McGee 208-384-3464 EIS No. 20160272, Final Supplement, USFS, CO, Rulemaking for Colorado Roadless Areas, Review Period Ends: 12/19/2016, Contact: Jason Robertson 303-275-5470

    Amended Notices:

    EIS No. 20160200, Draft, USACE, NY, Atlantic Coast of New York, East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, Comment Period Ends: 12/02/2016, Contact: Robert J. Smith 917-790-8729 Revision to Federal Register Notice Published 09/02/2016; Extending Comment Period from 11/17/2016 to 12/02/2016 Dated: November 15, 2016. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27845 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SES Performance Review Board—Appointment of Members AGENCY:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Traci M. DiMartini, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4306.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Publication of the Performance Review Board (PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments and performance awards.

    The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 12-month term, which begins on November 29, 2016.

    PRB Chair: Ms. Germaine P. Roseboro, Chief Financial Officer, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Members: Ms. Peggy R. Mastroianni, Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Mr. Bryan C. Burnett, Chief Information Officer, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Ms. Veronica Venture, Director, EEO and Diversity, Department of Homeland Security; Mr. John M. Robinson, Director, Office of Civil Rights/Chief Diversity Officer, U.S. State Department.

    By the direction of the Commission.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Jenny R. Yang, Chair.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27710 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10400, Sun Security Bank, Ellington, Missouri

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Sun Security Bank, Ellington, Missouri (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Sun Security Bank on October 7, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: November 15, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Valerie J. Best, Assistant Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27760 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY [No. 2016-N-11] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Housing Finance Agency.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning a new information collection known as “Contractor Workforce Inclusion Good Faith Efforts.” This information collection has not yet been assigned a control number by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year control number.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may submit comments on or before January 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments to FHFA, identified by “Proposed Collection; Comment Request: `Contractor Workforce Inclusion Good Faith Efforts, (No. 2016-N-11)' ” by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: www.fhfa.gov/open-for-comment-or-input.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at [email protected] to ensure timely receipt by the agency.

    Mail/Hand Delivery: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219, ATTENTION: Proposed Collection; Comment Request: “Contractor Workforce Inclusion Good Faith Efforts, (No. 2016-N-11)”.

    We will post all public comments we receive without change, including any personal information you provide, such as your name and address, email address, and telephone number, on the FHFA Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov. In addition, copies of all comments received will be available for examination by the public on business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. To make an appointment to inspect comments, please call the Office of General Counsel at (202) 649-3804.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric Howard, Diversity and Inclusion Principal Advisor, Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, [email protected], (202) 649-3009; Karen Lambert, Associate General Counsel, [email protected], (202) 649-3094; or Eric Raudenbush, Associate General Counsel, [email protected], (202) 649-3084 (these are not toll-free numbers); Federal Housing Finance Agency, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. The Telecommunications Device for the Hearing Impaired is (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Need for and Use of the Information Collection

    Section 342(a)(1)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) requires FHFA and certain other Federal agencies each to establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.1 Section 342(c)(1) requires the OMWI Director at each agency to develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts. Section 342(c)(2) requires that the OMWI Director include in the agency's procedures for evaluating contract proposals and hiring service providers a component that gives consideration to the diversity of an applicant, to the extent consistent with applicable laws. That statutory provision also requires that each agency's procedures include a written statement that a contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor and, as applicable, subcontractors.

    1 12 U.S.C. 5452.

    Further, section 342(c)(3)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that each agency's standards and procedures include a procedure for determining whether an agency contractor or subcontractor has failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in its workforce. If the OMWI Director determines that a contractor or subcontractor has failed to make such a good faith effort, section 342(c)(3)(B)(i) provides that the OMWI Director shall recommend to the agency administrator that the contract be terminated. Section 342(c)(3)(B)(ii) provides that, upon receipt of such a recommendation, the agency administrator may either terminate the contract, make a referral to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) of the Department of Labor, or take other appropriate action.

    As a means of implementing the requirements of section 342(c) of the Dodd-Frank Act, FHFA developed a Minority and Women Inclusion Clause (MWI Clause) that it now includes in all Agency contracts with a dollar value greater than the “simplified acquisition threshold” (currently, $150,000) established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).2 The MWI Clause requires a contractor to confirm its commitment to equal opportunity in employment and contracting, and to implement that commitment by ensuring, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce. The MWI Clause also requires that a contractor include the substance of the MWI Clause in all subcontracts with a dollar value greater than $150,000 awarded under the contract. (Hereinafter subcontractors that are subject to the MWI Clause are referred to as “covered” subcontractors.)

    2See FAR 2.101. The FAR appears at 48 CFR chapter 1.

    Finally, the MWI Clause requires a contractor to provide, when requested by FHFA, documentation demonstrating that it and any covered subcontractor has made a good faith effort to ensure the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce. The MWI Clause provides that such documentation may include, but is not limited to: (1) The contractor's total number of employees, and the number of minority and women employees, by race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., an EEO-1 Employer Information Report (Form EEO-1)); (2) a list of the subcontracts the contractor awarded including the dollar amount, date of the award, and the ownership status of the subcontractor by race, ethnicity, and/or gender; (3) information similar to that required under item 1 above for each subcontractor; and (4) the contractor's plan to ensure that minorities and women have appropriate opportunities to enter and advance within its workforce, including outreach efforts (hereinafter, a “workforce inclusion plan”). A request for documentation by FHFA pursuant to this provision of the MWI Clause would constitute a “collection of information” within the meaning of the PRA.

    While FHFA has included the MWI Clause in all contracts with a dollar value greater than $150,000 consummated since November 7, 2013, the Agency has not, to this point, asked any contractor or covered subcontractor to provide documentation pursuant to the clause. FHFA is now developing procedures that the OMWI Director will follow in determining whether its contractors and covered subcontractors have made good faith efforts to comply with the MWI Clause. The Agency expects that, once it adopts those procedures, it will begin to request the types of documentation described in the MWI Clause from contractors and covered subcontractors.

    The purpose of this information collection is to fulfill the requirements of section 342(c)(3)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The collected information will allow FHFA's OMWI Director to determine whether contractors and covered subcontractors have complied with their obligations to make good faith efforts to ensure, to the maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of minorities and women in their respective workforces.

    B. Burden Estimate

    FHFA estimates that the average annual burden imposed on all respondents by this information collection over the next three years will be 368 hours. All of the assumptions and calculations underlying the total burden estimate are described in detail below.

    Because, as explained below, the amount of burden imposed upon a contractor by this information collection will differ depending upon whether the contractor has 50 or more employees, FHFA has based its total burden estimate on two separate sets of calculations—(I) one for contractors with 50 or more employees; and (II) another for contractors with fewer than 50 employees.

    FHFA includes the MWI Clause in Agency contracts with a dollar value greater than $150,000. Under the MWI Clause, the FHFA may also request information about covered subcontractors' ownership status, workforce demographics, and workforce inclusion plans. Contractors would request this information from their covered subcontractors, who, because the substance of the MWI Clause would be included in their subcontracts, would have an obligation to keep records and report data as required under the MWI Clause.

    FHFA data on the dollar value of contracts awarded by the Agency from the beginning of fiscal year 2013 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2016 shows that 63 contractors were subject to the MWI Clause. FHFA believes that 44 of those contractors have 50 or more employees, while 19 contractors have fewer than 50 employees. FHFA estimates that no more than two subcontracts with a dollar value of $150,000 or more were awarded by Agency contractors during that same time period. Both of those subcontractors have 50 or more employees each. Thus, over the preceding three years, a total of 65 contractors and subcontractors were subject to the MWI Clause—46 of which have 50 or more employees and 19 of which have fewer than 50 employees.

    Based on these figures, FHFA estimates that, on average over the next three years, 48 contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and 20 contractors or subcontractors with fewer than 50 employees will be subject to the MWI Clause at any given time. For purposes of these burden estimates, FHFA has assumed that each contractor or subcontractor will provide documentation under the MWI Clause once per year, although it is unlikely that the Agency will actually request documentation from every contractor in every year. (In the interest of brevity, the word “contractor” is intended also to include covered subcontractors in the explanation of the burden estimates that follows.)

    I. Documentation Submitted by Contractors With 50 or More Employees

    FHFA estimates that the average annual burden on contractors with 50 or more employees will be 48 hours (0 recordkeeping hours + 48 reporting hours).

    Because Federal contractors with 50 or more employees are already required to maintain the same types of records that may be requested pursuant to the MWI Clause under regulations implementing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 3 and Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246),4 this information collection will not impose new recordkeeping burdens on such contractors. FAR 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity, requires that such contractors' contracts and subcontracts include a clause implementing E.O. 11246. OFCCP regulations require each contractor with 50 or more employees and a Federal contract or subcontract of $50,000 or more to maintain records on the race, ethnicity, gender, and EEO-1 job category of each employee.5 OFCCP regulations also require each such contractor to: (1) Demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to remove identified barriers, expand employment opportunities, and produce measureable results; 6 and (2) develop and maintain a written program summary describing the policies, practices, and procedures that the contractor uses to ensure that applicants and employees received equal opportunities for employment and advancement.7 In lieu of creating and maintaining a separate workforce inclusion plan to submit in satisfaction of the MWI Clause, a contractor with 50 or more employees could submit the written program summary that it is already required to maintain under the OFCCP regulations to demonstrate its good faith efforts to ensure the fair inclusion of minorities and women in its workforce.

    3 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.

    4 Exec. Order No. 11246, 30 FR 12319 (Sept. 28, 1965).

    5See 41 CFR 60-1.7.

    6See 41 CFR 60-2.17.

    7See 41 CFR 60-2.31.

    With respect to reporting burden, FHFA estimates that it will take each contractor approximately one hour to retrieve and submit to the FHFA the documentation specified in the MWI Clause. Thus, the estimate of the annual burden upon contractors with 50 or more employees associated with reporting requirements under this information collection is 48 hours (48 contractors × 1 hour per contractor).

    II. Documentation Submitted by Contractors With Fewer Than 50 Employees

    FHFA estimates that the average annual burden on contractors with fewer than 50 employees will be 320 hours (300 recordkeeping hours + 20 reporting hours).

    OFCCP regulations require contractors with fewer than 50 employees to maintain records on the race, ethnicity, and gender of each employee.8 FHFA believes that such contractors also keep EEO-1 job category information in the normal course of business, despite the fact that they are not required by law to do so. However, contractors with fewer than 50 employees may not have the type of written program summary that is required of larger contractors under the OFCCP regulations or any similar document that could be submitted as a workforce inclusion plan under the MWI Clause. Accordingly, such contractors may need to create a workforce inclusion plan to comply with the MWI Clause.

    8See 41 CFR 60-3.4.

    In order to estimate the burden associated with creating a workforce inclusion plan, FHFA considered the OFCCP's burden estimates for the time needed to develop the written program summaries required under its regulations.9 In its OMB Supporting Statement, the OFCCP estimated that a contractor with 1 to 100 employees would take approximately 73 burden hours to create an initial written program summary. While the OFCCP regulations require contractors to perform time-consuming quantitative analyses when developing their written program summaries, such analyses would not be required in connection with the creation of a workforce inclusion plan. For this reason, FHFA believes that a contractor could develop a workforce inclusion plan in about one-third of the time that it would take to develop the written program summary required under the OFCCP regulations.

    9See PRA Supporting Statement for the OFCCP Recordkeeping and Requirements-Supply and Service Program, OMB Control No. 1250-0003, at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201602-1250-001.

    FHFA estimates that a contractor with fewer than 50 employees would spend approximately 25 hours creating a workforce inclusion plan for the first time. The Agency estimates that each contractor would then spend approximately 10 hours annually in updating and maintaining its plan. This results in an estimated average annual recordkeeping burden over the next three years on each contractor with fewer than 50 employees of 15 hours [(25 + 10 + 10)/3 years]. Thus, FHFA estimates that the average annual recordkeeping burden on all contractors with fewer than 50 employees over the next three years will be 300 hours (20 contractors × 15 hours per contractor).

    FHFA estimates that it will take each contractor approximately one hour to retrieve and submit to FHFA the documentation specified in the MWI Clause. Thus, the estimate of the annual burden upon contractors with fewer than 50 employees associated with reporting requirements under this information collection is 20 hours (20 contractors × 1 hour per contractor).

    C. Comments Request

    FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: November 14, 2016. Kevin Winkler, Chief Information Officer, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27821 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8070-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 13, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. West Town Bancorp, Raleigh, North Carolina; to acquire 43.5 percent of Windsor Advantage, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana and thereby indirectly engage de novo in extending credit and servicing loans pursuant to section 225.28 (b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 15, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27831 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 1, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Vivian Reedy, Bella Vista, Arkansas, and Sharon Meek, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, co-trustees of the Coy E. Reedy Trust B, Bella Vista, Arkansas,

    to retain voting shares of Farmers Bancshares Inc., and thereby retain Independent Farmers Bank, both of Maysville, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 15, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27830 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 14, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Arbor Bancorp, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan; to merger with Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Birmingham, both of Birmingham, Michigan.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Adirondack Trust Company Employee Stock Ownership Trust, Saratoga Springs, New York; to acquire additional shares of 473 Broadway Holding Corporation and The Adirondack Trust Company, both of Saratoga Springs, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 14, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27718 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 5, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Matthew A. Michaelis, Wichita Kansas, as proposed trustee of the Isabella Michaelis EFC Trust, the Margaret Michaelis EFC Trust, and the Henry Michaelis EFC Trust; Amy L. Madsen, Wichita, Kansas, as proposed trustee of the Mallory Loflin EFC Trust, the Mick Madsen EFC Trust, and the Morgan Madsen EFC Trust; and Laura L. Haunschild, Redwood, California, as proposed trustee of the Walter Bachmann EFC Trust, the Karl Bachman EFC Trust, and the Markus Bachmann EFC Trust; and each of the trusts, to acquire shares of Emprise Financial Corporation, Wichita, Kansas, as members of the Michaelis Family Group. Emprise Financial Corporation controls Emprise Bank, Wichita, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 14, 2016. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27719 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of Board Member Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

    77 K Street NE., 10th Floor Board Room, Washington, DC 20002.

    Agenda

    Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Member Meeting.

    November 29, 2016, In-Person, 8:30 a.m.

    Open Session 1. Approval of the minutes for the October 31, 2016 Board Member Meeting 2. Monthly Reports (a) Participant Activity Report (b) Legislative Report (Verbal) (c) Investment Performance and Policy Report 3. Quarterly Reports (d) Metrics (e) Project Activity 4. Office of Investment Report 5. Capital Market and L Fund 6. 2017 Proposed Internal Audit Schedule 7. Blended Retirement Update Closed Session

    Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), c(6), and (c)(9)(B).

    Adjourn CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: November 16, 2016. Megan Grumbine, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-27980 Filed 11-16-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Pharmacy Survey on Patient Safety Culture Comparative Database.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by January 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Pharmacy Survey on Patient Safety Culture Comparative Database

    In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for health care organizations to d