Federal Register Vol. 81, No.24,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 24 (February 5, 2016)

Page Range6157-6410
FR Document

81_FR_24
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 6185 - Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards ActPDF
81 FR 6405 - Establishing a Federal Earthquake Risk Management StandardPDF
81 FR 6157 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to Côte d'IvoirePDF
81 FR 6292 - Notice of Public Meeting: Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils; PostponementPDF
81 FR 6307 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 6300 - Sunshine Act Meetings; National Science BoardPDF
81 FR 6308 - Sunshine Act; Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 6260 - Deletion of Consent Agenda Items From Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 6258 - Availability of FY 14 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local AgenciesPDF
81 FR 6259 - Availability of FY 13 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local AgenciesPDF
81 FR 6257 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
81 FR 6175 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances ActPDF
81 FR 6324 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Office of Language Services Contractor ApplicationPDF
81 FR 6190 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA into Schedule IPDF
81 FR 6324 - Advisory Committee on Private International Law: Public Meeting on Online Dispute ResolutionPDF
81 FR 6200 - Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 6171 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of the Synthetic Cannabinoid MAB-CHMINACA Into Schedule IPDF
81 FR 6329 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 6330 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 6326 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 6332 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 6251 - Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2016; Small, Rural School Achievement ProgramPDF
81 FR 6264 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 6244 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 6308 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 6236 - Antidumping Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Antidumping DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 6234 - Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 6237 - Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 6179 - Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate; Chauvin, LAPDF
81 FR 6196 - Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SCPDF
81 FR 6285 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0039PDF
81 FR 6277 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6275 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6181 - Safety Zone; Hudson River, Anchorage Ground 19-WPDF
81 FR 6328 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; NarcolepsyPDF
81 FR 6238 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 6241 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
81 FR 6243 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6222 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35PDF
81 FR 6258 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 6229 - Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency ProjectPDF
81 FR 6170 - Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council LevelPDF
81 FR 6281 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories Study (NIEHS)PDF
81 FR 6246 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 6325 - Louisiana Southern Railroad, L.L.C.-Lease Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-The Kansas City Southern Railway CompanyPDF
81 FR 6249 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 6293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: Financial Capability FormPDF
81 FR 6293 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection Monthly Return of Human Trafficking Offenses Known to Law EnforcementPDF
81 FR 6244 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 6256 - Energy Resources USA, Inc.; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To IntervenePDF
81 FR 6252 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 6253 - TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 6253 - LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion ProjectPDF
81 FR 6254 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 6256 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 6325 - Release of Waybill DataPDF
81 FR 6290 - Advisory Board for Exceptional ChildrenPDF
81 FR 6289 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional ChildrenPDF
81 FR 6225 - Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of the Products of BiotechnologyPDF
81 FR 6280 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 6278 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 6301 - Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power ReactorsPDF
81 FR 6302 - United States Geological Survey, TRIGA Research ReactorPDF
81 FR 6257 - Colusa-Sutter 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, California (DOE/EIS-0514)PDF
81 FR 6183 - Income Level for Individuals Eligible for AssistancePDF
81 FR 6238 - Council Coordination Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 6244 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; Nguran CorporationPDF
81 FR 6261 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Re FDIC Small Business Lending SurveyPDF
81 FR 6169 - Loans in Areas Having Special Flood HazardsPDF
81 FR 6263 - Notice of Termination; 10303 Progress Bank of Florida; Tampa, FloridaPDF
81 FR 6260 - Notice of Termination; 4556 Meritor Savings Bank; Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 6233 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6265 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6234 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6334 - Pipeline Safety: Safe Operations of Underground Storage Facilities for Natural GasPDF
81 FR 6301 - Information Collection; NRC Form 790 Classification RecordPDF
81 FR 6299 - Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 6292 - Large Residential Washers From China; DeterminationPDF
81 FR 6322 - Medallion Financial Corp.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 6241 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 6210 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Seafood Import Monitoring ProgramPDF
81 FR 6336 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of an Approved Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions With Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection ActPDF
81 FR 6225 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6295 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (CSLLEASTL)PDF
81 FR 6294 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection: State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands (SLJASTL): Census of State and Local Prosecutor Offices Serving Tribal Lands (CSLPOSTL)PDF
81 FR 6229 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 6339 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Fiduciary ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 6340 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003PDF
81 FR 6308 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 6264 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 6264 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 6295 - Notice-Agricultural Worker Population Estimates for Basic Field-Migrant GrantsPDF
81 FR 6333 - Notice To Rescind Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study, VirginiaPDF
81 FR 6317 - PNC Funds, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 6311 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Amending the Seventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the Exchange To Establish a Committee for Review as a Sub-Committee of the ROC and Make Conforming Changes to Rules and the NYSE MKT Company GuidePDF
81 FR 6314 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order ProtectionPDF
81 FR 6308 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Limit Order Protection and a Market Order ProtectionPDF
81 FR 6263 - International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement; OrderPDF
81 FR 6284 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 6284 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 6281 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 6285 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 6285 - Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of MeetingPDF
81 FR 6282 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 6282 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 6283 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Consumer Health Information in Public Libraries User Needs Survey (NLM)PDF
81 FR 6342 - Agency Information Collection (VA Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Use of Health Care (Survey of Enrollees)) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 6342 - Commission on CarePDF
81 FR 6272 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 6274 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 6270 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 6286 - Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)-Alternative Requirements or Waivers: Alternative Requirements for Use of Public Housing Units for the San Francisco Housing AuthorityPDF
81 FR 6326 - Seventeenth Meeting: RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC)PDF
81 FR 6198 - Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various CategoriesPDF
81 FR 6300 - Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541)PDF
81 FR 6300 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 6185 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 6260 - Notice of Termination; 10483 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, TennesseePDF
81 FR 6178 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VAPDF
81 FR 6291 - Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Final Phase V Early Restoration Plan and Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 6177 - Maine State Plan for State and Local Government EmployersPDF
81 FR 6243 - Record of Decision for the Schofield Generating Station Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Army Garrison-HawaiiPDF
81 FR 6343 - Public Transportation Agency Safety PlanPDF
81 FR 6372 - National Public Transportation Safety PlanPDF
81 FR 6375 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, AlaskaPDF
81 FR 6287 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 6159 - Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Homeland SecurityPDF

Issue

81 24 Friday, February 5, 2016 Contents Agricultural Research Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6225 2016-02211 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Research Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Foreign Agricultural Service

See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Introduction of the Products of Biotechnology, 6225-6229 2016-02247 Army Army Department NOTICES Records of Decision: Schofield Generating Station Project, United States Army Garrison; HI, 6243 2016-02041 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6270-6275 2016-02173 2016-02174 2016-02175 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6275-6278 2016-02277 2016-02278 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VA, 6178-6179 2016-02100 Safety Zones: Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate; Chauvin, LA, 6179-6181 2016-02281 Hudson River, Anchorage Ground 19-W, 6181-6183 2016-02276 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC, 6196-6198 2016-02280 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6285-6286 2016-02279 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-02229 6233-6234 2016-02231
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 2016-02273 6238-6241 2016-02274 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6241-6242 2016-02217 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More, 6336-6338 2016-02212 Fiduciary Activities, 6339-6340 2016-02207 Identity Theft Red Flags and Address Discrepancies under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 6340-6342 2016-02206 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6243-6244 2016-02272 Arms Sales, 6244-6251 2016-02258 2016-02261 2016-02264 Intents to Grant Exclusive Licenses: Nguran Corp., 6244 2016-02238 Manual for Courts-Martial: Proposed Amendments, 6244 2016-02290
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 6175-6177 2016-02308 Temporary Placement of the Synthetic Cannabinoid MAB-CHMINACA into Schedule I, 6171-6175 2016-02302 PROPOSED RULES Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA into Schedule I, 6190-6196 2016-02305 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Application Deadlines: Small, Rural School Achievement Program, 6251-6252 2016-02292 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

See

Western Area Power Administration

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 6200-6210 2016-02303 NOTICES Availability of FY 13 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies, 6259 2016-02311 Availability of FY 14 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies, 6258-6259 2016-02313 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 6258 2016-02270 Pesticide Product Registrations: Receipt of Applications for New Uses, 6257-6258 2016-02309 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 6185-6190 2016-02161 NOTICES Meetings: Seventeenth RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee, 6326 2016-02171 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 6260 2016-02329 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards, 6169-6170 2016-02236 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, 6261-6263 2016-02237 Terminated Receivership: 10303 Progress Bank of Florida Tampa, Florida, 6263 2016-02235 4556 Meritor Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 6260 2016-02234 Terminations of Receivership: Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, TN, 6260-6261 2016-02153 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc., 6253-6254 2016-02255 Combined Filings, 2016-02252 6252-6256 2016-02253 2016-02256 Preliminary Permit Applications: Energy Resources USA, Inc., 6256-6257 2016-02257 Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion Project: LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC, 6253 2016-02254 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Orders: International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement, 6263-6264 2016-02189 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 6326-6333 2016-02298 2016-02299 2016-02300 2016-02301 Narcolepsy, 6328-6329 2016-02275 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6265-6270 2016-02230 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 6264 2016-02291 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 6264 2016-02204 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 6264-6265 2016-02203 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, 6344-6371 2016-02017 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study, Virginia; Withdrawal, 6333 2016-02200 National Public Transportation Safety Plan; Availability, 6372-6373 2016-02010 Foreign Agricultural Foreign Agricultural Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 6229 2016-02208 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, 6229-6233 2016-02269 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration PROPOSED RULES Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act, 6185 C1--2016--01083 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Minority Health; Correction, 6280-6281 2016-02246
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 6278-6280 2016-02245 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

RULES Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Homeland Security, 6159-6169 2016-01318
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 6287-6289 2016-01935 Rental Assistance Demonstration—Alternative Requirements or Waivers: Alternative Requirements for Use of Public Housing Units for the San Francisco Housing Authority, 6286 2016-02172 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board for Exceptional Children, 6290-6291 2016-02249 Requests for Nominations: Bureau of Indian Education Advisory Board for Exceptional Children, 6289-6290 2016-02248 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Final Phase V Early Restoration Plan, 6291-6292 2016-02089
International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia, 6234-6236 2016-02287 Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, 6236-6237 2016-02288 Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil, 6237-6238 2016-02286 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Large Residential Washers from China, 6292-6293 2016-02223 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Financial Capability Form, 6293-6294 2016-02260 Monthly Return of Human Trafficking Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 6293 2016-02259 State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands; Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Serving Tribal Lands, 6295 2016-02210 State and Local Justice Agencies Serving Tribal Lands; Census of State and Local Prosecutor Offices Serving Tribal Lands, 6294-6295 2016-02209
Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Bureau of Land Management Nevada Resource Advisory Councils; Postponement, 6292 2016-02405 Legal Legal Services Corporation RULES Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance, 6183-6184 2016-02241 NOTICES Agricultural Worker Population Estimates for Basic Field—Migrant Grants, 6295-6299 2016-02201 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Exclusive Licenses, 6299-6300 2016-02225 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consumer Health Information in Public Libraries User Needs Survey, 6283-6284 2016-02181 National Toxicology Program Level of Concern Categories Study, 6281-6282 2016-02266 Charter Renewals: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 6285 2016-02185 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 6284-6285 2016-02188 Center or Scientific Review; Cancellation, 6285 2016-02184 National Cancer Institute, 6281, 6284 2016-02186 2016-02187 National Institute of Mental Health, 6282-6283 2016-02183 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 6282 2016-02182 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic: Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35, 6222-6224 2016-02271 Seafood Import Monitoring Program, 6210-6222 2016-02216 NOTICES Meetings: Council Coordination Committee, 6238 2016-02239 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Geophysical and Geotechnical Survey in Cook Inlet, AK, 6376-6404 2016-01967 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Antarctic Conservation Act Permit Applications, 6300 2016-02166 Antarctic Conservation Act Permits, 6300-6301 2016-02165 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 6300 2016-02362 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Classification Record, 6301-6302 2016-02226 Draft NUREG: Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, 6301 2016-02244 License Renewal Applications: United States Geological Survey, TRIGA Research Reactor, 6302-6307 2016-02243 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 6307 2016-02392 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Maine State Plan for State and Local Government Employers, 6177-6178 2016-02069 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Safe Operations of Underground Storage Facilities for Natural Gas, 6334-6336 2016-02228 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 6308 2016-02289 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 6308 2016-02205 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Earthquake Risk Management Standard, Federal; Establishment (EO 13717), 6405-6410 2016-02475 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Cote d'Ivoire; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of February 3, 2016), 6157-6158 2016-02429 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 6308 2016-02357 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation PROPOSED RULES Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories, 6198-6200 2016-02168 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Medallion Financial Corp., 6322-6324 2016-02222 PNC Funds, et al., 6317-6322 2016-02199 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., 6308-6311 2016-02196 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 6314-6317 2016-02197 NYSE MKT, LLC, 6311-6314 2016-02198 Social Social Security Administration RULES Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level, 6170-6171 2016-02267 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office of Language Services Contractor Application, 6324-6325 2016-02307 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Private International Law, 6324 2016-02304 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Lease Exemptions Containing Interchange Commitments: Louisiana Southern Railroad, LLC from Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 6325-6326 2016-02263 Release of Waybill Data, 6325 2016-02251 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: VA Survey of Veteran Enrollees? Health and Use of Health Care (Survey of Enrollees), 6342 2016-02178 Meetings: Commission on Care, 6342 2016-02177 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Scoping Period Extensions: Colusa-Sutter 500-kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, CA, 6257 2016-02242 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, 6344-6373 2016-02017 2016-02010 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 6376-6404 2016-01967 Part IV Presidential Documents, 6405-6410 2016-02475 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 LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

81 24 Friday, February 5, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 5 CFR Chapter XXXVI [Docket No. DHS-2008-0168] RINs 1601-AA17, 3209-AA15 Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Homeland Security AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the concurrence of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is finalizing this rule to supplement the OGE Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards) for DHS employees. These regulations supplement the OGE Standards and, among other things, set forth employee restrictions on the purchase of certain Government-owned property; require employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse; require employees to seek prior approval for certain outside employment and activities; prohibit employees in some DHS components from engaging in certain types of outside employment activities; and require designated components to develop instructions regarding the procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and activities. These regulations also designate components within DHS as separate agencies for purposes of determining whether the donor of a gift is a “prohibited source” and of identifying an employee's agency for the regulations governing teaching, speaking, and writing. This rulemaking is necessary in view of DHS programs and operations; DHS is comprised of numerous legacy agencies which have varying or no supplemental ethics regulations. This final rule follows publication of a proposed rule on October 12, 2011. We considered public comments on the proposed rule while revising this final rule. This final rule includes revisions to the definition of “outside employment” and the additional provisions applicable only to employees of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket DHS-2008-0168 and are available for inspection or copying from the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting DHS-2008-0168 in the “SEARCH” box, and then clicking “SEARCH.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ferne L. Mosley, Deputy Ethics Official, Department of Homeland Security, 202-447-3302, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Regulatory History III. Discussion of NPRM Comments A. Comments Regarding the Proposed Definition of “Outside Employment” B. Comments Regarding the Proposed Prior Approval Requirement C. Comments Regarding Manuals or Instructions on Implementing the Prior Approval Requirement D. Comments Regarding the Standard of Review of Outside Employment and Activity Requests E. Comments Regarding Outside Employment Restrictions Specific to CBP F. Comments Regarding Outside Employment Restrictions Specific to ICE G. Comments Regarding the Requirement To Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Corruption H. Other Comments IV. Discussion of Final Rule A. 5 CFR 4601.101 General B. 5 CFR 4601.102 Designation of DHS Components as Separate Agencies C. 5 CFR 4601.103 Prior Approval for Outside Employment and Activities D. 5 CFR 4601.104 Additional Rules for CBP Employees E. 5 CFR 4601.105 Additional Rules for FEMA Employees F. 5 CFR 4601.106 Additional Rules for ICE Employees G. 5 CFR 4601.107 Prohibited Purchases of Property H. 5 CFR 4601.108 Reporting Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Corruption V. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Small Entities/Regulatory Flexibility Act Table of Acronyms CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection CDEO Chief Deputy Ethics Official CFR Code of Federal Regulations DAEO Designated Agency Ethics Official DHS Department of Homeland Security FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OGE U.S. Office of Government Ethics U.S.C. United States Code §  Section Symbol I. Background

On August 7, 1992, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a final rule setting forth the uniform Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards), which, as corrected and amended, are codified at 5 CFR part 2635 (57 FR 35006). Effective on February 3, 1993, the OGE Standards established uniform ethics rules applicable to all Executive branch personnel.

Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.105, Executive branch agencies are authorized to publish, with the concurrence of OGE, supplemental regulations deemed necessary to implement their respective ethics programs. Prior to the creation of DHS, several legacy agencies were operating under supplemental ethics regulations issued by their former parent departments. The regulations finalized in this action will advance the purposes of the OGE Standards. Some outside employment interests and activities, if held by employees of certain Department of Homeland Security (DHS) components, could cause a reasonable person to question an employee's impartiality and objectivity. Particularly in view of the breadth of DHS's programs and operations, and because DHS is comprised of numerous legacy components with varying or no supplemental ethics regulations, this action is both necessary and appropriate. This rule will require prior approval of certain outside employment and activities to avoid potential conflicts of interest. This rule will also prohibit conflicting outside employment activities in certain components.

II. Regulatory History

On October 12, 2011, DHS, with OGE's concurrence, published for comment a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supplement the OGE Standards for DHS employees. 76 FR 63206. The NPRM proposed supplemental ethics rules designed to implement uniform ethical requirements for all DHS employees, many of whom were previously employed by 22 other Executive branch departments and agencies prior to DHS's formation in 2003. The NPRM also proposed certain ethical requirements specific to certain DHS components based on the nature of their programs and operations. Specifically, the NPRM proposed to (1) set forth employee restrictions on the purchase of certain Government-owned property; (2) require employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse; (3) require employees to seek prior approval for certain outside employment and activities; (4) prohibit employees in some DHS components from engaging in certain types of outside employment activities; (5) require designated components to develop instructions regarding the procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and activities; and (6) designate components within DHS as a separate agency for purposes of determining whether the donor of a gift is a “prohibited source” and of identifying an employee's agency for the regulations governing teaching, speaking, and writing. These proposals sought to strengthen the integrity of DHS programs and operations and give the public greater confidence that DHS employees are held to a high standard of ethical behavior while carrying out DHS's missions. For a more complete discussion of the proposals in the NPRM, please refer to the preamble of that document available in the public docket for this rulemaking and in the Federal Register at 76 FR 63206.

By the close of the NPRM's public comment period on December 12, 2011, DHS received 12 comment letters. Eight of the commenters expressed concern that the NPRM's definition of “outside employment” was overly broad. Some commenters stated that the definition impeded the constitutional rights and lawful political activities of DHS employees. Other commenters addressed the necessity for the rule, specifically the requirement to seek prior approval for outside activities and employment; the requirement for employees to report waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption; and the amount of government resources and time required to implement the rule's provisions. Other commenters generally sought clarification on the impact the rule will have on employees serving as U.S. Coast Guard reservists and reservists in other military services, as well as the rule's effect on official employee interactions with non-Federal entities. There were also comments on the agency-specific proposed regulations for employees of U.S. Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) components, regarding the broad nature of the prohibited outside employment and activities for these employees and how this might affect an employee's ability to engage in certain routine consumer transactions. In the next section, we discuss the public comments in greater detail and provide DHS responses.

III. Discussion of NPRM Comments A. Comments Regarding the Proposed Definition of “Outside Employment”

Comment: One commenter stated that the definition of “outside employment” should only include employment and activities that directly relate to an employee's official duties, because outside positions that are unrelated to the employee's duties will not present a conflict of interest. The commenter stated that any activity with a non-profit organization should be excluded from the definition, even if the activity is compensated.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. DHS notes that matters that are “related to” the DHS mission or even the employee's official duties are not always obvious or intuitive. For example, employees may not necessarily be aware of broader DHS mission involvement, grant programs, regulatory activities, and the like, which may apply to non-profit organizations. Moreover, there are occasions when holding a fiduciary or compensated position with a non-profit organization, or providing personal services to such an organization, may indeed create a criminal conflict of interest for an employee. This is true even if the non-profit organization's mission does not relate to the employee's duties or the programs of the employee's agency.

For example, all Federal employees are prohibited by criminal statute from acting as an agent or attorney on behalf of another in a matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest before any officer, employee, or court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. 205(a)(2). This rule applies regardless of whether the representation relates to the federal employee's assigned duties. Accordingly, under one possible scenario, a DHS employee who submits a grant application to another government agency in the employee's capacity as a board member of a non-profit organization would violate a criminal law by signing and submitting the application. Additionally, an employee who accepts compensation for such an activity would also violate another criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 203, which prohibits employees from accepting compensation for certain representational activities before a Federal agency or court. These prohibitions also apply to employees holding positions with for-profit companies. The above scenario provides an illustration of the rationale behind requiring DHS employees to generally obtain prior approval to engage in outside employment and activities, and why we are not limiting the prohibition on outside employment to activities directly related to an employee's official duties or exempting all positions with non-profit organizations. These provisions not only help manage DHS's ethics program, they also protect employees from inadvertent violations of the law. Outside employment and activities—even those that appear to be unrelated to DHS's mission or the employee's duties—may create conflicts of interest or present other ethical considerations.

Comment: Two commenters raised constitutional concerns that the definition of “outside employment,” to the extent that it may include a prior approval requirement for speaking and writing on matters of public concern, acted as a prior restraint on free speech. One commenter expressed concern that the prior approval requirement for speaking, teaching, writing, and political activity would by its nature delay the employee's ability to engage in such activities, and that all DHS employees would need to obtain prior approval for almost any expressive activity undertaken for compensation, including articles or speeches on matters of public concern unrelated to DHS's mission of the employees' duties. Another commenter expressed concern that writing personal letters to a newspaper editor or engaging in social media activities and blogging would be deemed to be an activity “under an arrangement with another person,” which would fall under the prior approval requirement.

DHS Response: The definition proposed in the NPRM was not intended to unconstitutionally restrict speech or expression. DHS does not view personal, uncompensated expressions of opinion, such as writing letters to newspaper editors or social media or blogging activities, as being done under an “arrangement with another person” for purposes of the supplemental DHS ethics regulations. DHS did not intend to require prior approval to engage in these types of uncompensated, personal expressions. Additionally, DHS did not intend these regulations to adversely impact an employee's ability to engage in or abstain from political activities permitted by the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326, that Act's related regulations, or relevant Executive branch policy. Such expressions are generally not the types of activities that would create a conflicting financial interest. These expressive activities are also not likely to involve a relationship for an employee that, under the OGE Standards, would result in an employee's disqualification from participating in an official capacity or cause a reasonable person to question an employee's impartiality, or otherwise amount to a conflicting outside employment or activity. To address the concerns raised by these commenters, this final rule narrows the definition of “outside employment” from what we proposed in the NPRM. Specifically, this final rule exempts “speaking and writing” from the definition of “outside employment,” provided that these activities are not combined with the provision of additional services that otherwise fall within the definition. The revised language also refers employees to the existing regulations at 5 CFR 2635.807 for further guidance on the limitations for accepting compensation for speaking and writing activities done in a personal capacity. The final rule retains “teaching” in the definition of “outside employment,” even though most teaching fits within the exceptions outlined in the OGE Standards.

Comment: Two commenters raised concerns that the proposed definition of “outside employment” seemed to include uncompensated speaking. The commenters also suggested that DHS should differentiate between an employee speaking or writing as a representative of the agency as opposed to speaking or writing on the employee's own behalf for compensation. The commenters further suggested that the two exclusions should appear in the regulatory text within the relevant section under separate numbers or other designation.

DHS Response: DHS agrees that in general, personal expressions such as writing letters to the editor and other uncompensated speaking and writing activities, should not be covered as “outside employment or activity.” As explained above, this final rule revises the definition of “outside employment” from that in the NPRM to generally exempt “speaking and writing” unless it otherwise falls under the definition. The revised language also refers employees to the existing regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 for further guidance on the limitations for accepting compensation for teaching, speaking and writing activities done in a personal capacity.

Comment: Some commenters raised concerns that the proposed definition of “outside employment” would impact an employee's ability to interact with, prepare materials for, and/or speak to non-Federal entities and other organizations in an employee's official capacity.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. The regulation states that it applies to outside employment and activities, which does not include an employee's activities in an official DHS capacity. DHS acknowledges that these comments might have been precipitated due to confusion created by an errant reference in the proposed rule to 5 CFR 2635.802 (“relates to an employee's official duties”). This final rule contains a corrected reference that appropriately cites to 5 CFR 2635.807.

Comment: One commenter stated that the prior approval requirement violates employees' privacy, and suggested that the definition of “outside employment” should contain a list that specifically excludes certain types of outside employment and activities that would never be a conflict for an employee (e.g., a holiday job at a retail store). The commenter also suggested that DHS should not require prior approval for certain types of employment and other activities. Finally, the commenter suggested that DHS should identify, in advance, types of employment and other activities that are always prohibited.

DHS Response: DHS declines to carve out from the “outside employment” definition and the prior approval requirement additional categories of outside employment and activities because the employment or activity would never pose an ethical conflict for any DHS employee. It is not always obvious or intuitive that a certain type of outside employment activity presents an ethical conflict. To adopt the commenter's scenario, working at a retail establishment may indeed pose a conflict for a DHS employee. For example, ethics rules would prohibit outside employment at certain retail stores for ICE employees who inspect retail facilities for immigration violations, or other DHS employees with official responsibilities for immigration and employment verification policies applicable to the retail industry. Although DHS does not find sufficient justification to support a broad exclusion for retail employment as the commenter suggested, the rule does provide DHS components with the discretion to exempt this type of activity under their implementing policies based on each component's unique mission. As a result, some types of outside employment or activities may be excluded by an individual component's implementing instructions.

Regarding the commenter's other suggestion, although some DHS components (specifically, CBP, FEMA, and ICE) have determined that certain types of outside employment and other activities should be prohibited, those determinations do not apply DHS-wide. For example, there is no basis for broadly extending the prohibition on CBP employees from working for a customs broker to the employees of other DHS components whose missions do not involve customs. Moreover, it is not possible to anticipate all types of outside employment and other activities that might create a potential conflict. Accordingly, this final rule does not adopt the commenter's suggestion for a blanket list of prohibited employment or activities, because such a list would likely result in overly-broad restrictions for all DHS employees.

B. Comments Regarding the Proposed Prior Approval Requirement

Comment: One commenter stated that the prior approval requirement was unnecessary, stating that DHS employees are “fully capable of determining for themselves whether an activity would conflict with their official responsibilities or otherwise adversely affect DHS, or create the appearance of impropriety.” The commenter also stated that employees would voluntarily seek ethics advice without a prior approval requirement, thus rendering the requirement moot.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. Requiring an ethics review is a low-cost mechanism for avoiding serious consequences that may accrue to employees who would otherwise inadvertently run afoul of the rules. Employees are often not aware of all applicable ethics statutes, regulations, and OGE guidance that may be implicated when engaging in outside employment or activities. The OGE Standards establish that agencies carry out an ethics program competent to ensure the fundamental objectives of providing employees with informed and objective guidance. DHS ethics counselors serve as a resource for employees and provide employees with guidance and legal opinions in order to ensure that employees are aware of and follow the relevant ethics regulations and conflict of interest statutes. Many of the ethics rules, including ones that may be implicated by outside employment and activities, include criminal penalties. Violations of these laws may carry civil and criminal penalties and may result in termination of employment. In addition, an employee who seeks an opinion from an agency ethics official and has made full disclosure of all relevant circumstances, and relies in good faith on such an opinion is shielded, at a minimum, from agency administrative action. See 5 CFR 2635.107(b).

Although many employees voluntarily seek the guidance of an agency ethics official before engaging in outside employment or activities, some conflicts may not be obvious to employees, thereby putting them at unnecessary risk for potential conflicts or violations of the law. Therefore, a regulatory requirement for employees to obtain prior approval for outside employment and other activities is not only in the best interest of DHS and the public, it will also help protect employees from inadvertent missteps.

Comment: One commenter stated that a prior approval requirement would be a waste of time and create unnecessary paperwork. The commenter also questioned DHS's motives for the prior approval requirement.

DHS Response: For the reasons stated above, the prior approval requirement will help protect DHS's interest in the integrity of its programs by creating a mechanism to affirmatively provide substantive guidance to employees in an effort to avoid potential conflicts of interest. The prior approval requirement will also help employees comply with the laws governing employee ethics. This prior approval requirement is consistent with similar requirements promulgated by other cabinet-level departments.

Additionally, DHS has determined that a uniform prior approval requirement in the DHS supplemental ethics regulations is important for establishing and maintaining consistency in the DHS ethics program. The rule will eliminate discrepancies between certain DHS employees previously employed by legacy agencies, who are covered by the legacy agency's ethics rules, and employees hired after DHS was created, who had not previously been covered by a supplemental ethics regulation. This rule will cover all DHS employees.

Comment: One commenter stated that proposed section 4601.103(a) was overbroad and exceeded the DHS and OGE's legal authority to establish the prior approval requirement. The commenter characterized the NPRM as requiring prior approval for “all types of activities.”

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. The prior approval requirement applies only to certain types of outside employment and activities as defined in the rule. Additionally, section 404 of title 5 App., United States Code (U.S.C.) grants OGE the authority to promulgate regulations that govern the ethical conduct of Executive branch employees. Further, 5 CFR 2635.803 permits agencies to require employees to obtain prior approval before engaging in certain outside employment or activities.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the prior approval requirement would have the unintended consequence of requiring members of the military (e.g., Army and Air National Guard) to obtain prior approval to engage in military service.

DHS Response: DHS does not intend to require members of the military to seek and obtain prior approval before engaging in military service. In response to this comment and to avoid any confusion, this final rule includes a revised definition of “outside employment or activity” that specifically excludes military service.

Comment: One commenter questioned whether the rule would require U.S. Coast Guard reservists to obtain prior approval for their full-time civilian jobs.

DHS Response: DHS wishes to clarify that a U.S. Coast Guard reservist who is on voluntary active duty for a period in excess of one hundred and thirty days is considered to be a DHS employee and will be subject to the prior approval requirement for outside employment or activities. A U.S. Coast Guard reservist who is on active duty solely for training or who is involuntarily serving is considered to be a “Special Government Employee” and is not subject to the prior approval requirement; the majority of reservists fall into one of these latter categories. Accordingly, this rulemaking should have a minimal impact on the majority of U.S. Coast Guard reservists.

Additionally, this final rule requires DHS components to issue component-specific instructions or a manual that governs employee requests for approval of outside employment or activities. The U.S. Coast Guard may address matters such as the one raised by the commenter in its instructions or manual.

Comment: One commenter argued that the prior approval requirement will strain the resources of DHS ethics offices.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. DHS is aware that this final rule will result in employee requests for prior approval of outside employment or activities to be reviewed by ethics officials at DHS headquarters and at the components. Based on the experience of DHS ethics officials, a number of these employee requests will involve outside employment or activities that require minimal analysis, are already excluded from the regulatory definition of “outside employment,” or are (or will be) addressed in the relevant component-specific instructions or manual. For employee requests that require more detailed analysis by DHS ethics officials, DHS expects the prior approval process to help employees avoid engaging in prohibited outside employment or activities. As a result, DHS employees and ethics officials will encounter fewer actualized conflict situations, which DHS expects will offset any increased initial time investment on the part of DHS ethics officials to process employee requests for prior approval.

C. Comments Regarding Manuals or Instructions on Implementing the Prior Approval Requirement

Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule did not discuss the particulars of the publication of a “manual” and expressed concern regarding non-publication within the specified timeline.

DHS Response: DHS wishes to clarify that component manuals and instructions governing employee requests for approval of outside employment and activities will be internal DHS documents. In response to this comment, however, this final rule clarifies that the component instructions or manuals will be issued internally within 60 days of the publication of the final rule. Instructions will be issued consistent with each component's procedures for issuing internal instructions or manuals affecting its employees. Further, the regulation as finalized also states that, “in the absence of a manual or instruction identifying a person designated to act upon a request for approval for outside employment, the Chief Deputy Ethics Official at each agency shall act upon a request.” The proposed rule already provided instruction on how outside employment requests are to be processed before a specific DHS component has issued its internal instruction or manual.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that subsequent internal agency instructions may require employees to seek prior approval for all types of outside employment, even when the definition in the rule generally excludes charitable agencies.

DHS Response: DHS notes that the text of 5 CFR 4601.103(c)(2) states that, “agencies may include in their instructions or manual examples of outside employment or activities that are permissible or prohibited consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 and this part” (emphasis added). Accordingly, a DHS component's instructions may not require prior approval for any activities and employment that do not already fall under the regulatory definition of “outside employment” and the exclusions in 5 CFR 4601.102(d). For example, because the definition in the rule excludes activities or personal services with non-profit organizations that are non-fiduciary and uncompensated, a DHS component's instructions may not include this type of activity as one requiring prior approval in an agency instruction; to do so would require employees to seek prior approval for employment and activities that are inconsistent with regulatory definition of “outside employment.” Moreover, to help ensure consistency with the applicable regulations, the DHS Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) must review and approve the relevant component manuals and instructions prior to issuance.

D. Comments Regarding the Standard of Review of Outside Employment and Activity Requests

Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS adopt the standard that it will approve requests for outside employment unless there is a showing that the activity will involve prohibited conduct.

DHS Response: DHS agrees. This final rule changes the standard in the proposed rule, which had provided that DHS would approve outside employment requests only upon a determination that the activity does not involve prohibited conduct. The final standard requires DHS to grant permission to engage in the activity unless the conduct is prohibited by law or regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635 and this part. Considering the rights of employees to engage in activities and employment on their own time within the confines of the law, this revised standard still requires the reviewing official(s) to make an affirmative determination that the proposed activity or employment does or does not create a conflict of interest with the employee's job or otherwise violate the law or ethical standards, so the integrity of the Department's programs will still be protected but the standard will not unduly restrict an employee's ability to participate in outside employment and other activities. This standard more accurately reflects the basis under the OGE Standards for determining whether an outside activity conflicts with an employee's official duties. See generally 5 CFR part 2635, subpart H.

Comment: One commenter suggested that there should be deadlines for DHS to act on outside employment requests.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees. While DHS ethics officials consider the time sensitivities related to any request for ethics advice, these officials must sufficiently develop the facts surrounding each request in order to provide accurate ethics guidance. Setting uniform deadlines as the commenter suggests could hinder the provision of accurate ethics guidance. DHS also disagrees that a request not answered within a specific time frame should be presumed approved. This practice would not best serve the interests of DHS or its employees because potential ethics violations could subject an employee to criminal prosecution or administrative action and may disrupt ongoing operations. An employee who acts in good faith in reliance on an opinion from an agency ethics official, and has made full disclosure of all relevant circumstances, is protected from administrative action, and this reliance may also be a mitigating factor in instances of potential civil or criminal violations. An employee who acts without an opinion from an ethics official in violation of the law is not afforded such protection. 5 CFR 2635.107(b). Accordingly, a standard that would permit an employee to act in the absence of guidance from an ethics official would undermine the purpose of the ethics program and the role of the agency's ethics officials to provide guidance to employees that prevents violations of the ethics laws and regulations.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should contain criteria for approval of outside employment and activities.

DHS Response: DHS notes that the ethics regulations in 5 CFR 2635.802 already contain criteria for approval of outside employment or any other outside activity (and outline the circumstances in which an employee's outside employment or activity conflicts with the employee's official duties).

E. Comments Regarding Outside Employment Restrictions Specific to CBP

Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed rule's provisions specific to CBP would unnecessarily restrict CBP employees from engaging in outside employment or activities. Specifically, the commenter suggested that DHS clarify whether a CBP employee is prohibited from any employment by a company that engages in the listed activities, or only to the extent that the outside employment would relate to the prohibited activity. For example, the commenter inquired whether a CBP employee would be prohibited from outside employment at a law firm that conducts some customs business even if the outside employment activity is unrelated to the law firm's customs business.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that the proposed rule would unnecessarily restrict CBP employees from engaging in outside employment or activities. There are certain types of employment and activities that conflict with the official duties of CBP employees and, therefore, CBP employees are prohibited from such outside employment and activities in any circumstance. Accordingly, 5 CFR 4601.104(a)(2) prohibits CBP employees from engaging in employment or business activities related to importing or exporting merchandise or agricultural products, or the entry or departure of persons into or out of the United States.

In addition, there are certain types of employers with which the employment of a CBP employee would create a conflict, regardless of the nature of the employment activity. Thus, 5 CFR 4601.104(a)(1) prohibits a CBP employee from engaging in outside employment activities in support of or on behalf of certain types of entities that generally engage in business related to CBP missions (e.g., customs, immigration, agriculture), even if the CBP employee's actual outside employment activity at that entity would be apparently unrelated to any CBP mission. The rationale behind this latter prohibition is that employment in any capacity with such an entity would expose a CBP employee to an environment in which customs, immigration, and/or agriculture issues are discussed, and also where the employee may be queried or called upon for assistance because of the employee's affiliation with CBP. The potential risk in this environment of intermingling private and Federal interests constitutes a sufficient reason to restrict such employment in any capacity with these entities engaging in operations regulated by CBP. Finally, we note that the Department of the Treasury supplemental ethics regulation included substantially the same restriction for former Customs Service employees prior to CBP's reorganization under DHS.

Following review of the proposed regulatory text, DHS has included a number of revisions in this final rule. DHS intends the revisions to improve clarity without sacrificing important controls over potentially problematic employee activities.

Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed restriction on CBP employees to privately engage in employment or activities related to the importation or exportation of merchandise is overly broad. Specifically, the commenter argued that the provision would prohibit CBP employees from: (1) Purchasing products online that would be shipped from outside the United States; (2) buying products while on vacation that would be shipped back to the United States; or (3) sending a non-monetary gift to a friend, relative, or charity outside the United States.

DHS Response: DHS does not intend this provision to cover the types of personal transactions highlighted by the commenter. DHS intends the provision to cover outside employment in the nature of conducting transactions for a business purpose, not the personal use of an employee. In response to this comment, DHS has revised the regulatory language in this final rule so that it now includes the word “business” to clarify that the restriction does not apply to personal transactions similar to those highlighted by the commenter.

Additionally, in response to this comment, DHS conducted a broader review of the CBP provisions in the regulatory text to determine whether similar clarifications would be appropriate. As a result of that review, this final rule includes another revision to the provision that prohibits CBP employees from engaging in outside employment activities related to agriculture matters. As proposed, the rule would have generally restricted CBP employees from engaging in outside employment or activities with a business or other entity that engages in services related to “agriculture matters.” Regarding this regulatory provision, DHS only intends to restrict CBP employees from engaging with businesses or entities that deal with agricultural matters that relate to CBP's mission. To avoid restricting CBP employee involvement in such activities that would not conflict with their official duties or CBP's mission, this final rule includes clarifying language to that effect in the regulatory text.

F. Comments Regarding Outside Employment Restrictions Specific to ICE

Comment: One commenter argued that the proposed restriction on ICE employees to privately engage in employment or activities related to the importation or exportation of merchandise is overly broad. Specifically, the commenter expressed concern that the rule as proposed would prohibit ICE employees from mailing: (1) Gifts to a relative overseas (or receiving gifts from overseas) since the package would require inspection; and (2) merchandise to a buyer overseas after a lawful online auction.

DHS Response: Assuming that the commenter's examples are unrelated to the operation of a business by an employee, DHS does not intend the provision to cover the types of personal transactions highlighted by the commenter. DHS intends the rule to cover outside employment in the nature of conducting business activities—this does not include personal, routine consumer transactions unrelated to the operation of a business. In response to this comment, DHS has revised the regulatory language in this final rule so that it now includes the word “business,” to clarify the scope of the restriction.

Additionally, in response to this comment and the CBP-specific comment referenced above, DHS also reviewed the ICE-specific provisions in the regulatory text to determine whether additional clarifications would be appropriate. As a result of that review, this final rule includes revisions in parallel with the CBP-specific revisions described above.

G. Comments Regarding the Requirement To Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Corruption

Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS employees should be required to report not just suspected violations of laws or regulations regarding waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption, but also lawful activities as well that may constitute suspected waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption.

DHS Response: The proposed rule required employees to “report immediately any suspicions of violations of law or regulation involving Department of Homeland Security programs or operations to appropriate authorities, such as the Office of the Inspector General.” DHS has revised the final rule to mirror the language in Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989 (as modified by Executive Order 12731) and the general principle at 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(11). The final rule requires employees to “disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities, such as the DHS Office of Inspector General.” DHS emphasizes the responsibility of DHS employees to be stewards of Government funds and to protect the integrity of DHS programs and operations.

Comment: Two commenters suggested that DHS provide greater specificity in the regulations regarding the appropriate authorities to whom employees should report suspected violations.

DHS Response: The NPRM proposed to require employees to report suspected violations to “appropriate authorities, such as the Office of the Inspector General.” DHS believes this language provides both sufficient specificity and flexibility to cover the large number of reporting chains of authority throughout DHS. Certain DHS components also maintain internal offices of internal affairs, inspections, audits, or professional responsibility, which would also be appropriate authorities for these purposes.

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule would require employees to have sufficient in-depth knowledge of laws or regulations to render legal determinations on whether violations have occurred. The same commenter suggested that a requirement to report “suspicions” creates the potential for abuse and erroneous reporting, and therefore, DHS should consider requiring employees to report information that gives rise to “probable cause,” a standard used by law enforcement in certain contexts.

DHS Response: DHS disagrees with both comments. Employees are capable of detecting waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption based on common sense and personal observation. Reporting such suspicions imposes no requirement on an employee to interpret the law or regulations, investigate, or make any determinations on the legal or other substantive merits of a potential allegation. Under the final rule, employees are responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities of a suspected violation. Trained investigators within DHS are able to conduct investigations to determine the merits of employee reports.

Comment: One commenter suggested that there should be a list of the types of alleged fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption that should be reported. Another commenter requested more specific definitions of the terms “waste,” “fraud,” “abuse,” and “corruption,” and questioned whether the requirement to report suspicions of waste applied to de minimis forms of waste (e.g., wasting small amounts of office supplies).

DHS Response: Due to the breadth and scope of incidents of possible waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption, it would be impractical to provide a comprehensive list, and it would also serve to limit the incidents to those on the list when other actions may go unreported but still qualify as a violation. As stated above, DHS expects employees to use common sense when considering whether they have observed reportable waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption. Additionally, DHS has issued guidelines to assist employees regarding how, when, and where to report such allegations. An employee who is unsure about whether there is a reporting requirement may consult an agency ethics official or the Department's Office of Inspector General.

Comment: One commenter suggested that the rule should also require an employee to report a new arrest or charge.

DHS Response: This rule deals primarily with outside employment and waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. Matters such as employee arrest records are personnel matters (i.e., under the Office of Security of the Chief Human Capital Officer) and are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

H. Other Comments

Comment: One commenter suggested that DHS take measures to ensure that there are ethical boundaries on corporations and their level of influence over national policies.

DHS Response: This rule deals primarily with outside employment and waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. Matters that deal with the ethical boundaries on private corporations and their level of influence over national policies are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: One commenter suggested that Executive Order 12866 requires DHS to conduct a cost-benefit analysis reviewed by OMB for this rulemaking.

DHS Response: While the NPRM was not identified as a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, DHS did consider the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. This rule only regulates DHS employees and imposes no direct costs on the private sector. Accordingly, the NPRM certified the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (76 FR 63207).

In addition, DHS does not believe this rulemaking would increase government costs. To the extent that additional prior approval of outside employment activities increases the number of reviews by DHS ethics officials of proposed outside employment, this increased volume is expected to be offset with fewer conflict situations for ethics officials and employees. In summary, this rule only regulates DHS employees, is not expected to increase government costs, and is expected to reduce the number of conflict situations—and therefore, reduce the costs associated with potentially lengthy investigations and corrective actions—within DHS. The rule is also expected to result in substantial additional benefits, including enhanced transparency into prior approval requirements and stronger public confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

Aside from the changes made in response to comments discussed in Section III., this final rule adopts the proposals from the NPRM. The following discussion provides a summary of the provisions in the final rule.

A. 5 CFR 4601.101 General

This section identifies to whom the supplemental regulations apply. It also cross-references to other ethics regulations and guidance applicable to DHS employees—including regulations on financial disclosure, financial interests, and employee responsibilities and conduct—and implementing DHS guidance and procedures issued in accordance with the OGE Standards.

This section further defines the term “agency designee” as it appears in 5 CFR 2635.102(b), to identify those persons within DHS who are designated to act on requests and make determinations relating to 5 CFR part 2635 and this part. The section also defines the term “outside employment” and lists the types of employment and activities that would require prior approval. It also lists activities for which prior approval is not required, such as the uncompensated activities (other than the reimbursement of expenses) on behalf of a charitable or nonprofit organization that do not involve fiduciary duties and do not relate to the employee's official duties as defined by 5 CFR 2635.807. In addition, this section defines the term “Chief Deputy Ethics Official” as the person (or persons) within DHS delegated authority by the DHS Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) to manage and coordinate the ethics programs within DHS's components and offices.

B. 5 CFR 4601.102 Designation of DHS Components as Separate Agencies

This section identifies certain components within DHS as separate agencies for the purposes of the provisions governing prior approval for outside activities, accepting gifts from non-Federal sources, outside teaching, speaking, and writing activities, and issuing prior approval instructions. For those specified purposes, DHS has designated eight DHS components as separate agencies and has designated the remainder of the DHS components as a single agency. For the limited purpose of issuing prior approval instructions, DHS has designated the Office of Inspector General as a separate agency. To avoid confusion when reading this preamble together with the regulatory text, the discussion in this Section IV. will refer to the DHS components as “agencies,” consistent with the regulatory text of this final rule.

In addition, paragraph (c) of this section explains the applicability of these requirements to detailed employees within DHS (i.e., an employee from one agency temporarily working for another agency). An employee on detail from his/her employing agency to another agency for a period in excess of 30 calendar days is subject to the supplemental regulations and instructions of the agency to which the employee is detailed rather than the employing agency. For example, if a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employee is detailed to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for 60 days, the CBP employee will be subject to ICE's supplemental regulations and instructions during the period of the detail with ICE.

C. 5 CFR 4601.103 Prior Approval for Outside Employment and Activities

This section requires employees to obtain written approval prior to engaging in any outside employment and activities, as defined by the rule. The prior approval requirement is an integral part of DHS's ethics program. The prior approval requirement is necessary to ensure that an employee's participation in certain outside employment does not adversely affect operations within the employing agency or place the employee at risk of violating applicable Federal conduct statutes and regulations. In addition, prior approval is necessary to avoid the appearance that an outside employment or activity was obtained through a misuse of the employee's official position and to address a number of other potential ethics concerns.

Because DHS provides money in the form of grants and contracts, and engages in enforcement, regulatory, and security functions across a multitude of industry sectors, requiring prior approval is necessary to ensure that the public will have confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations. In fulfilling its mission, DHS would be hindered if members of the public did not have confidence in DHS employees' ability to act impartially while performing their official duties.

Section 4601.103(a) requires employees to obtain approval from the DHS employee's agency for certain outside employment and activities, with or without compensation, unless the employing agency issues an instruction or manual exempting such outside employment or activities. Section 4601.103(b) describes the standard the agency must follow for approval of requests for outside employment and activities. Section 4601.103(c) describes the responsibilities of DHS agencies for issuing instructions to employees on how to request prior approval of outside employment and activities.

Because Special Government Employees may serve at DHS only for a limited time during a 365-day period and for a limited purpose (such as service on a Federal Advisory Committee or service as a consultant), the nature of their service to DHS does not require that they be subject to the prior approval requirement for outside employment and activities or the additional restrictions applicable to CBP, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or ICE employees described below.

D. 5 CFR 4601.104 Additional Rules for CBP Employees

This section prohibits CBP employees, except Special Government Employees, from being employed by, or from engaging in, activities in support of or on behalf of, an entity that engages in a trade or business performing specified customs, immigration, or agriculture activities or services.

This section also requires a CBP employee with a spouse, a relative who is a financial dependent or household member, or another household member or financial dependent who is employed in a position that the CBP employee is prohibited from occupying to notify his or her agency designee in writing of the above-described employment circumstances. In addition, the employee is disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving such person or the person's employer unless authorized to do so by the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the CBP Chief Deputy Ethics Official.

E. 5 CFR 4601.105 Additional Rules for FEMA Employees

This section prohibits certain FEMA employees, except Special Government Employees, both intermittent and non-intermittent, from being employed by a FEMA contractor. It also provides the procedures for requesting a waiver of this restriction.

F. 5 CFR 4601.106 Additional Rules for ICE Employees

This section prohibits ICE employees, except Special Government Employees, from being employed by, or from engaging in activities in support of or on behalf of, an entity that engages in a trade or business performing specified customs, immigration, or agriculture activities or services. This section also requires an ICE employee with a spouse, a relative who is a financial dependent or household member, or another household member or financial dependent who is employed in a position that the ICE employee is prohibited from occupying to notify his or her agency designee in writing of the above-described employment circumstances. In addition, the employee is disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving such person or the person's employer unless authorized to do so by the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the ICE Chief Deputy Ethics Official.

G. 5 CFR 4601.107 Prohibited Purchases of Property

This section prohibits the purchase by employees of certain Government property under the control of, seized by, forfeited, under the direction of, or incident to, the employee's agency. It also sets forth the exception and waiver provisions under this section.

H. 5 CFR 4601.108 Reporting Waste, Fraud, Abuse, and Corruption

This section requires all DHS employees to report allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, or corruption to the appropriate authorities within DHS, such as the DHS Office of Inspector General or the appropriate Office of Internal Affairs or Office of Professional Responsibility. Employee responsibilities for reporting suspicions of violations of law or regulation to the DHS Office of Inspector General or similar office are found in related DHS and agency instructions. This regulation complements but does not displace those responsibilities.

V. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it. As discussed previously, this rule only regulates DHS employees and consequently does not impose any additional direct costs on the private sector. In addition, DHS does not believe this rulemaking would increase government costs. To the extent that additional prior approval of outside employment activities increases the number of reviews by DHS ethics officials of proposed outside employment, this increased volume is expected to be offset with fewer conflict situations—and therefore, reduce the costs associated with potentially lengthy investigations and corrective actions—within DHS. The rule is also expected to result in substantial additional benefits, including enhanced transparency into prior approval requirements and stronger public confidence in the integrity of DHS programs and operations.

B. Small Entities/Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), DHS has considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. DHS certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it would only directly affect DHS employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 4601

Conflict of interests, Government employees.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS, with the concurrence of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, is amending title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding chapter XXXVI, consisting of part 4601, to read as follows:

Title 5—Administrative Personnel CHAPTER XXXVI—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PART 4601—SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Sec. 4601.101 General. 4601.102 Designation of DHS components as separate agencies. 4601.103 Prior approval for outside employment and activities. 4601.104 Additional rules for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees. 4601.105 Additional rules for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees. 4601.106 Additional rules for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. 4601.107 Prohibited purchases of property. 4601.108 Reporting waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301, 7301, 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; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.203(a), 2635.403(a), 2635.702, 2635.703, 2635.802(a), 2635.803, 2635.807(a)(2)(ii).

§ 4601.101 General.

(a) Applicability. In accordance with 5 CFR 2635.105, the regulations in this part apply to employees of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and supplement the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards) in 5 CFR part 2635.

(b) Cross-references to other ethics regulations and guidance. In addition to the OGE Standards in 5 CFR part 2635 and this part, DHS employees are subject to the Executive branch financial disclosure regulations contained in 5 CFR parts 2634, the Executive branch financial interests regulations contained in 5 CFR part 2640, the Executive branch employee responsibilities and conduct regulations contained in 5 CFR part 735, and DHS guidance and procedures on employee conduct, including those issued under paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) DHS agency instructions. Prior to issuance, the DHS Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO) must approve any internal instructions or manuals that DHS agencies, as designated in § 4601.102 of this part, issue to provide explanatory ethics-related guidance and to establish procedures necessary to implement 5 CFR part 2635 and this part.

(d) Definitions—(1) Agency designee as used in this part and in 5 CFR part 2635 means an employee who has been identified in an instruction or manual issued by an agency under paragraph (c) of this section to make a determination, give an approval, or take other action required or permitted by this part or 5 CFR part 2635 with respect to another employee.

(2) Outside employment or activity as used in this part means any form of non-Federal employment, business activity, business relationship, or other covered activity as identified in this section, involving the provision of personal services by the employee, whether or not for compensation. It includes, but is not limited to, personal services as an officer, director, employee, agent, attorney, advisor, consultant, contractor, general partner, trustee, or teacher. There are several exclusions and limitations to the definition as described immediately below.

(i) Speaking and writing activities. Outside employment generally does not include speaking and writing activities so long as they are not combined with the provision of other services that do fall within this definition, such as the practice of law and other outside employment or activities covered by paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section. Employees who wish to engage in compensated speaking or writing in a personal capacity are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR 2635.807 and are encouraged to seek additional guidance from an agency ethics official.

(ii) Nonprofit and other organizations. Outside employment does not include participation in the activities of a nonprofit charitable, religious, professional, social, fraternal, educational, recreational, public service, or civic organization, unless the participation involves:

(A) Acting in a fiduciary capacity,

(B) Providing professional services for compensation,

(C) Rendering advice for compensation other than the reimbursement of expenses, or

(D) An activity relating to the employee's official duties as defined in 5 CFR 2635.807(a)(2)(i)(A) through (E), to include activities relating to any ongoing or announced policy, program, or operation of the employee's agency as it is defined at 5 CFR 4601.102.

(iii) The Hatch Act. Outside employment does not include activities otherwise permissible by the Hatch Act and related regulations relating to partisan political activities.

(iv) Military service. Outside employment does not include state or Federal military service protected by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

(v) Additional restrictions for certain employees. Employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should also refer to the agency-specific provisions in this part relating to outside employment.

(3) Chief Deputy Ethics Official as used in this part means the persons delegated authority by the DHS DAEO to manage and coordinate the ethics programs within the DHS components pursuant to the DAEO's authority in 5 CFR 2638.204.

(4) “Special Government Employee” as used in this part has the same meaning as in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).

§ 4601.102 Designation of DHS components as separate agencies.

(a) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203(a), DHS designates each of the following components as a separate agency for purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d); for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the establishment of procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment; for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the designation of officials; and for the purposes of the regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing:

(1) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);

(2) Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;

(3) Transportation Security Administration;

(4) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;

(5) U.S. Coast Guard;

(6) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);

(7) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and

(8) U.S. Secret Service.

(b)(1) DHS will treat employees of DHS components not designated as separate agencies in paragraph (a) of this section, including employees of the Office of the Secretary, as employees of the remainder of DHS. For purposes of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources, including determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d); for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the establishment of procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment; for purposes of the regulations in § 4601.103(c) of this part governing the designation of officials; and for purposes of the regulations in 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing, DHS will treat the remainder of DHS as a single agency that is separate from the components designated as separate agencies in paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) For the limited purposes of establishing procedures for obtaining prior approval for outside employment and designating officials pursuant to § 4601.103(c) of this part, DHS will treat the DHS Office of Inspector General as a separate agency.

(c) An employee on detail from his or her employing agency to another agency for a period in excess of 30 calendar days is subject to the supplemental regulations and instructions of the agency to which he is detailed rather than his or her employing agency.

§ 4601.103 Prior approval for outside employment and activities.

(a) General requirement for approval. A DHS employee, other than a Special Government Employee, shall obtain prior written approval before engaging in any outside employment or activity (as defined by § 4601.101 of this part), with or without compensation, unless the employee's agency has exempted the outside employment or activity (or category or class of outside employment or activity) from this requirement by an instruction or manual issued pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Standard for approval. Approval shall be granted unless it has been determined that the outside employment is expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635 and this part.

(c) Agency responsibilities. (1) With the approval of the DHS DAEO, each agency as set forth in § 4601.102 of this part shall issue internal instructions or a manual governing the submission of requests for approval of outside employment and activities and designating appropriate officials to act on such requests not later than May 5, 2016.

(2) The instructions or manual may exempt particular outside employment or activities (or categories or classes of outside employment or activities) from the prior approval requirement of this section if such outside employment or activities would generally be approved and are not likely to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR part 2635 and this part. Agencies may include in their instructions or manual examples of outside employment or activities that are permissible or prohibited consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 and this part.

(3) In the absence of a manual or instruction identifying a person designated to act upon a request for approval for outside employment, the Chief Deputy Ethics Official at each agency shall act upon a request.

§ 4601.104 Additional rules for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees.

The following rules apply to employees of CBP, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and §§ 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:

(a) Prohibitions on outside employment and activities. (1) No CBP employee shall be employed by or engage in activities in support of or on behalf of a customs broker; international carrier; bonded warehouse; foreign trade zone as defined in 15 CFR 400.2; cartman; law firm engaged in the practice of customs, immigration, or agriculture law; entity engaged in the enforcement of customs, immigration, or agriculture law; importation or exportation department of a business; or business or other entity which engages in services related to agriculture matters where such agriculture matters relate to CBP's mission.

(2) No CBP employee shall, in any private capacity, engage in employment or a business activity related to the importation or exportation of merchandise or agricultural products requiring inspection (other than a personal, routine consumer transaction unrelated to the operation of a business), or the entry of persons into or departure of persons from the United States.

(3) No CBP employee shall engage in outside employment or activities for a non-profit or other organization that involve assisting persons with matters related to the entry of persons or merchandise into or the departure of persons or merchandise from the United States, or matters related to obtaining temporary or permanent residency, citizenship, adjustment of status, or other immigration-related benefits.

(b) Restrictions arising from employment of the spouse, relatives, members of the employee's household, or financial dependents. (1) A CBP employee shall notify in writing his or her agency designee when any of the following circumstances exist:

(i) The spouse of the CBP employee is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section;

(ii) A relative (as defined in 5 CFR 2634.105(o)), who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the CBP employee, is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section; or

(iii) Any person, other than the spouse or relative of the CBP employee, who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the CBP employee, is employed in a position that the CBP employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) The CBP employee shall be disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving the individuals identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, or the employer thereof, unless the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the CBP Chief Deputy Ethics Official, authorizes the CBP employee to participate in the matter using the standard in 5 CFR 2635.502(d), or the waiver provisions in 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1), as appropriate.

§ 4601.105 Additional rules for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Employees.

The following rules apply to employees of FEMA, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:

(a) Prohibited outside employment (intermittent employees). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no intermittent FEMA employees hired under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 5149, which includes all Disaster Assistance Employees or Stafford Act Employees and Cadre of On-Call Response Employees, shall be employed by a current FEMA contractor while a FEMA employee, whether or not they are on activated status.

(b) Prohibited outside employment (non-intermittent employees). Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no non-intermittent FEMA employee shall be employed by a current FEMA contractor.

(c) Waivers. The FEMA Chief Deputy Ethics Official or his or her agency designee may grant a written waiver of any prohibition in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section with the DAEO's concurrence. To grant the waiver, the FEMA Chief Deputy Ethics Official or his or her agency designee must determine that the waiver is consistent with 5 CFR part 2635 and not otherwise prohibited by law; that the prohibition is not necessary to avoid the appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality; and that the waiver will not undermine the public's confidence in the employee's impartiality and objectivity in administering FEMA programs. A waiver under this paragraph may impose appropriate conditions, such as requiring execution of a written disqualification statement.

§ 4601.106 Additional rules for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees.

The following rules apply to employees of ICE, except Special Government Employees, and are in addition to §§ 4601.101 through 4601.103 and 4601.107 and 4601.108 of this part:

(a) Prohibitions on outside employment and activities. (1) No ICE employee shall be employed by or engage in activities in support of or on behalf of a customs broker; international carrier; bonded warehouse; foreign trade zone as defined in 15 CFR 400.2; cartman; law firm engaged in the practice of customs, immigration or agriculture law; entity engaged in the enforcement of customs, immigration or agriculture law; importation department of a business; or business or other entity which engages in agriculture matters where such agriculture matters relate to ICE's mission.

(2) No ICE employee shall, in any private capacity, engage in employment or a business activity related to the importation or exportation of merchandise or agricultural products requiring inspection (other than a personal, routine consumer transaction unrelated to the operation of a business), or the entry of persons into or the departure of persons from the United States.

(3) No ICE employee shall engage in outside employment or activities for a non-profit or other organization that involve assisting persons with matters related to the entry of persons or merchandise into or the departure of persons or merchandise from the United States, or matters related to obtaining temporary or permanent residency, citizenship, adjustment of status, or other immigration-related benefits.

(b) Restrictions arising from employment of spouse, relatives, members of the employee's household, or financial dependents. (1) An ICE employee shall notify in writing his or her agency designee when any of the following circumstances exist:

(i) The spouse of the ICE employee is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section;

(ii) A relative (as defined in 5 CFR 2634.105(o)) who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the ICE employee is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section; or

(iii) Any person, other than the spouse or relative of the ICE employee, who is financially dependent on or who is a member of the household of the ICE employee, is employed in a position that the ICE employee would be prohibited from occupying by paragraph (a) of this section.

(2) The ICE employee shall be disqualified from participating in an official capacity in any particular matter involving the individuals described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or the employer thereof, unless the agency designee, with the advice and clearance of the ICE Chief Deputy Ethics Official, authorizes the ICE employee to participate in the matter using the standard in 5 CFR 2635.502(d), or the waiver provisions in 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(1), as appropriate.

§ 4601.107 Prohibited purchases of property.

(a) General prohibition. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no DHS employee may purchase, directly or indirectly, property that is:

(1) Owned by the Federal Government and under the control of the employee's agency, unless the sale of the property is being conducted by the General Services Administration; or

(2) Seized or forfeited under the direction or incident to the functions of the employee's agency.

(b) Designated separate components. For purposes of this section, the employee's agency is the relevant separate agency component as set forth in § 4601.102 of this part.

(c) Waiver. Employees may make a purchase prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section where a written waiver of the prohibition is issued in advance by the agency designee with the clearance of the DAEO or his or her designee. A waiver may only be granted if it is not otherwise prohibited by law or regulation and the purchase of the property will not cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the particular circumstances to question the employee's impartiality, or create the appearance that the employee has used his or her official position or nonpublic information for his or her personal gain.

§ 4601.108 Reporting waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption.

Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities, such as the DHS Office of Inspector General.

Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary. Walter M. Shaub, Jr., Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
[FR Doc. 2016-01318 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 339 RIN 3064-AE27 Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards AGENCY:

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to the final regulations which were published in the Federal Register of Tuesday, July 21, 2015 (80 FR 43216). The regulations related to Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards.

DATES:

Effective February 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Navid Choudhury, Counsel, Consumer Compliance Section, Legal Division, (202) 898-6526 or [email protected]; or John Jackwood, Senior Policy Analyst, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, (202) 898-3991or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the subject of this correction implement certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations contain an error which may prove to be misleading and needs to be clarified.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 339

Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

Accordingly, 12 CFR part 339 is corrected by making the following amendments:

PART 339—LOANS IN AREAS HAVING SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS 1. The authority citation for part 339 is added to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1819 (Tenth), 5412(b)(2)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4104a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128.

2. Revise the definition of “FDIC-supervised institution” in § 339.2 to read as follows:
§ 339.2 Definitions.

FDIC-supervised institution means any insured depository institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is the appropriate Federal banking agency pursuant to section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(q).

Dated: February 2, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02236 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 20 CFR Parts 404 and 416 [Docket No. SSA-2013-0061] RIN 0960-AH64 Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level AGENCY:

Social Security Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule adopts the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that we published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015. This final rule revises our rules regarding returning evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) level. Under this final rule, the AC will no longer return additional evidence it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision.

DATES:

Effective Date: This final rule is effective February 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maren Weight, Office of Appellate Operations, Social Security Administration, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, 703-605-7100. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule adopts the NPRM that we published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2015.1

1http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-21/pdf/2015-26747.pdf

Background

In the NPRM, we provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on November 20, 2015. We received no comments. We explained our reasons for proposing the rule which we are now adopting as a final rule in the preamble to the NPRM (80 FR at 63718-63719), and we incorporate that discussion here.

Regulatory Procedures Good Cause for Effective Date

We find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the NPRM, we are making a minor change to our current rules by discontinuing the practice of having the AC return additional evidence that it receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ's decision. We now use many electronic services that make the practice of returning evidence unnecessary. For example, we now scan most of the medical evidence into the electronic claim(s) file or appointed representatives submit it through our Electronic Records Express system. This technology immediately uploads records into a claimant's electronic folder, making the records available for review in real time. As a result, it is neither administratively efficient nor cost effective for us to print out documents that have been submitted to us electronically by a claimant or appointed representative in order to return them to the claimant.

The change we are making in this final rule will allow us to better utilize our limited administrative resources. For these reasons, we find that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of our final rule.

Executive Order 12866 as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the criteria for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Thus, OMB did not review the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it applies to individuals only. Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.

Paperwork Reduction Act

These Final Rules do not create any new or affect any existing collections and, therefore, do not require Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social Security—Disability Insurance; 96.002, Social Security—Retirement Insurance; 96.004, Social Security—Survivors Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security Income) List of Subjects 20 CFR Part 404

Administrative practice and procedure; Blind; Disability benefits; Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Social Security.

20 CFR Part 416

Administrative practice and procedure; Aged, Blind, Disability benefits, Public Assistance programs; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 20 CFR chapter III, part 404 and part 416, as set forth below:

PART 404—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE (1950- ) Subpart J—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions 1. The authority citation for subpart J of part 404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 201(j), 204(f), 205(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 221, 223(i), 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(j), 404(f), 405(a)-(b), (d)-(h), and (j), 421, 423(i), 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 5, Pub. L. 97-455, 96 Stat. 2500 (42 U.S.C. 405 note); secs. 5, 6(c)-(e), and 15, Pub. L. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1802 (42 U.S.C. 421 note); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

2. In § 404.976, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 404.976 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.

(b) * * * (1) The Appeals Council will consider all the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 6 months after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 404.630. If you file a new application within 6 months of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED Subpart N—Determinations, Administrative Review Process, and Reopening of Determinations and Decisions 3. The authority citation for subpart N of part 416 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 702(a)(5), 1631, and 1633 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1383, and 1383b); sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).

4. In § 416.1476, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 416.1476 Procedures before Appeals Council on review.

(b) * * * (1) In reviewing decisions based on an application for benefits, the Appeals Council will consider the evidence in the administrative law judge hearing record as well as any new and material evidence submitted to it that relates to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision. If you submit evidence that does not relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law judge hearing decision, the Appeals Council will explain why it did not accept the additional evidence and will advise you of your right to file a new application. The notice will also advise you that if you file a new application within 60 days after the date of the Appeals Council's notice, your request for review will constitute a written statement indicating an intent to claim benefits in accordance with § 416.340. If you file a new application within 60 days of the date of this notice, we will use the date of the request for review as the filing date for your application.

[FR Doc. 2016-02267 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-421F] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of the Synthetic Cannabinoid MAB-CHMINACA Into Schedule I AGENCY:

Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to temporarily schedule the synthetic cannabinoid N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (common names, MAB-CHMINACA and ADB-CHMINACA), and its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of this synthetic cannabinoid into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As a result of this order, the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances will be imposed on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis, or possess), or propose to handle, MAB-CHMINACA.

DATES:

This final order is effective February 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Authority

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

Background

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of the Administrator's intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 The Administrator transmitted the notice of intent to place N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (hereinafter referred to as MAB-CHMINACA) into schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated May 14, 2015. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated June 3, 2015, and advised that based on review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there are currently no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for MAB-CHMINACA. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I of the CSA. The DEA has taken into consideration the Assistant Secretary's comments. MAB-CHMINACA is not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA, and no exemptions or approvals are in effect for MAB-CHMINACA under section 505 of the FDCA. 21 U.S.C. 355. The DEA has found that the control of MAB-CHMINACA in schedule I on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety, and as required by 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1)(A), a notice of intent to temporarily schedule MAB-CHMINACA was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2015. 80 FR 55565.

1 As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993. Accordingly, all subsequent references to “Secretary” have been replaced with “Assistant Secretary.”

To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

Available data and information for MAB-CHMINACA, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic cannabinoid (SC) has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA 3-Factor analysis and the Assistant Secretary's June 3, 2015, letter are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at www.regulations.gov under Docket Number DEA-421.2

2 Although the published notice of intent stated that such items had been placed into the docket on regulations.gov, the Administration discovered in preparing this final order that they had in fact not been posted. However, those documents were available for review at the DEA. The DEA posted the cited analysis and letter to regulations.gov upon discovery of the omission.

Synthetic Cannabinoids

Synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is believed SCs were first introduced into the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to present, misuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing plant material laced with SCs intended for human consumption. It has been demonstrated that the substances and the associated designer products are abused for their psychoactive properties. With many generations of SCs being encountered since 2009, MAB-CHMINACA is one of the latest, and based upon reports from public health sources and law enforcement, the misuse and abuse of this substance is negatively impacting the public health and communities.

The designer drug products laced with SCs, including MAB-CHMINACA, are often sold under the guise of “herbal incense” or “potpourri,” use various product names, and are routinely labeled “not for human consumption.” Additionally, these products are marketed as a “legal high” or “legal alternative to marijuana” and are readily available over the Internet, in head shops, and sold in convenience stores. There is an incorrect assumption that these products are safe, and that labeling these products as “not for human consumption” is a legal defense to criminal prosecution.

MAB-CHMINACA is an SC that has pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC and other temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I substances. MAB-CHMINACA has been shown to cause severe toxicity and adverse health effects following ingestion, including seizures, excited delirium, cardiotoxicity and death. With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, MAB-CHMINACA has emerged on the illicit drug market and is being abused for its psychoactive properties.

Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse

SCs were first encountered by CBP within the United States in November 2008. Since then, the popularity of SCs and their associated products has increased steadily as evidenced by law enforcement seizures, public health information, and media reports. Despite multiple administrative and legislative actions to place SCs found on the illicit market into schedule I of the CSA, new generations of SCs intended to circumvent current law continue to be encountered with serious outcomes. Traffickers of these dangerous substances continue to attempt to skirt the law even after multiple control actions demonstrating a lack of regard for public health and safety. MAB-CHMINACA is an SC that was encountered following the hospitalization of 125 individuals around the Baton Rouge, Louisiana area in October 2014 (see factor 6 of the DEA 3-Factor). Since that time, multiple overdoses and deaths involving MAB-CHMINACA have been reported. For example, overdose clusters attributed to MAB-CHMINACA have been reported in Shreveport, Louisiana; Bryan, Texas; Beaumont, Texas; Hampton, Virginia; Hagerstown, Maryland; and multiple cities in the State of Mississippi (see factor 6 of the DEA 3-Factor). Specifically, in April 2015, the largest nationwide outbreak involving SCs was reported by multiple news outlets. In addition, State public health entities have collectively reported over 2,000 overdoses and at least 33 deaths across at least 11 States attributed to the misuse of SCs. Of these overdoses and deaths, currently available toxicology results have determined that a number of overdoses from this most recent cluster were connected to the ingestion of MAB-CHMINACA (see factor 6 of the DEA 3-Factor).

On April 29, 2015, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) reported multiple outbreaks of intoxications within the United States resulting from the ingestion of products believed to contain SCs. EMCDDA further reported that MAB-CHMINACA had been implicated in at least some of those cases. EMCDDA also reported on two deaths involving MAB-CHMINACA, one in Hungary and the other in Japan.

A major concern, as reiterated by public health officials and medical professionals, remains the targeting and direct marketing of SCs and SC-containing products to adolescents and youth. This is supported by law enforcement encounters and reports from emergency departments; however, all age groups have been reported by the media as abusing these substances and related products. Individuals, including minors, are purchasing SCs from the Internet, gas stations, convenience stores, and head shops.

Smoking mixtures of these substances for the purpose of achieving intoxication have resulted in numerous emergency department visits and calls to poison control centers. As reported by the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), adverse effects including severe agitation, anxiety, racing heartbeat, high blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, seizures, tremors, intense hallucinations, psychotic episodes, suicide, and other harmful thoughts and/or actions can occur following ingestion of SCs. Presentations at emergency departments directly linked to the abuse of MAB-CHMINACA have resulted in similar symptoms, including severe agitation, seizures and/or death (see factor 6 of DEA 3-Factor).

As discussed previously, it is believed most abusers of SCs or SC-related products smoke the product following application to plant material. Until recently, this was the preferred route of administration. Law enforcement has also begun to encounter new variations of SCs in liquid form. It is believed abusers have been applying the liquid to hookahs and “e-cigarettes,” which allow the user to administer a vaporized liquid that can be inhaled.

Factor 5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse

Following multiple scheduling actions designed to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with SCs, encounters by law enforcement and health care professionals indicate the continued abuse of these substances and their associated products. With each action to control SCs, illicit drug manufacturers and suppliers are adapting at an alarmingly quick pace to design new SCs in an attempt to circumvent regulatory controls. Even before DEA temporarily controlled the latest group of SCs, AB-CHMINACA, AB-PINACA, and THJ-2201, on January 30, 2015, MAB-CHMINACA was already available on the illicit market and responsible for overdoses and deaths (see factor 6 of DEA 3-Factor). From October 2014 to the present, multiple overdoses and deaths have been attributed to the abuse of MAB-CHMINACA.

On October 29, 2014, the State of Louisiana issued an emergency rule adding N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (MAB-CHMINACA) to the list of schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substances section of the Louisiana Administrative Code (La. Admin. Code tit. 46, § 2704 (2014)), upon the determination that it had a high potential for abuse and should be scheduled as a controlled substance to avoid an imminent peril to the public health, safety, and welfare.

Poison control centers continue to report the abuse of SCs and their associated products. These substances remain a threat to both the short- and long-term public health and safety. Exposures to SCs were first reported to the AAPCC in 2011. The most alarming report via the AAPCC was published on April 23, 2015. The AAPCC reported a dramatic spike in poison center exposure calls throughout the United States in 2015. The AAPCC reported 1,512 exposure calls in April 2015, representing an almost three-fold increase in exposures to SCs as compared to the previous largest monthly tally (657 exposures in January 2012) since reporting began in 2011. It is likely that many of the calls are directly attributable to the abuse of MAB-CHMINACA based on its high prevalence in drug seizure reports and specimen test reports (see factor 6 and table 3 of DEA 3-Factor). Further, exposure calls to the AAPCC from within the first five months of 2015 (January 1 to June 1) are greater than the total exposure calls involving SCs from all of 2014. In addition, a majority of exposure incidents from 2011 to the present resulted in individuals seeking medical attention at health care facilities.

The following information regarding MAB-CHMINACA was obtained through NFLIS 3 (queried on May 27, 2015):

3 National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by state and local forensic laboratories in the United States.

MAB-CHMINACA: NFLIS-451 reports; first encountered in September 2014; locations include Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health

MAB-CHMINACA was identified in a cluster of 125 subjects that presented to emergency facilities within the Baton Rouge and Shreveport, Louisiana areas in October 2014. On October 29, 2014, the Louisiana Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals announced the addition of MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I of the Controlled Dangerous Substances section of the Louisiana Administrative Code (La. Admin. Code tit. 46, § 2704 (2014)). From October 2014 to the present, multiple clusters of overdoses involving MAB-CHMINACA and at least four deaths attributed to the misuse and abuse of MAB-CHMINACA have been reported (see factor 6 and table 3 of the DEA 3-Factor). Adverse health effects reported from use of MAB-CHMINACA have included: Seizures, coma, severe agitation, loss of motor control, loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing, altered mental status, and convulsions that in some cases resulted in death.

Since abusers obtain these drugs through unknown sources, the identity, purity, and quantity of these substances is uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to users. The SCs encountered on the illicit drug market have no accepted medical use within the United States. Regardless, SC products continue to be easily available and abused by diverse populations. Unknown factors including detailed product analysis and dosage variations between various packages and batches present a significant danger to an abusing individual. Similar to previous SCs, MAB-CHMINACA has been found on plant material. Designer drug products have been found to vary in the amount and type of SC that plant material is laced with, which could be one explanation for the numerous emergency department admissions that have been connected to these substances.

Finding of Necessity of Schedule I Placement To Avoid Imminent Hazard to Public Safety

Based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled handling and abuse of MAB-CHMINACA poses an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for MAB-CHMINACA in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for MAB-CHMINACA indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated May 14, 2015, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance in schedule I. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated June 3, 2015, and stated that the HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I. A notice of intent was subsequently published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2015. 80 FR 55565.

Conclusion

In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein set forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule MAB-CHMINACA into schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this SC into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place this SC into schedule I of the CSA to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the final order temporarily scheduling this substance will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2).

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

Requirements for Handling

Upon the effective date of this final order, MAB-CHMINACA will be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of schedule I controlled substances including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses), or who desires to handle, MAB-CHMINACA must be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312, as of February 5, 2016. Any person who currently handles MAB-CHMINACA and is not registered with the DEA, must submit an application for registration and may not continue to handle MAB-CHMINACA as of February 5, 2016, unless the DEA has approved that application for registration. Retail sales of schedule I controlled substances to the general public are not allowed under the CSA. Possession of any quantity of this substance in a manner not authorized by the CSA on or after February 5, 2016 is unlawful and those in possession of any quantity of this substance may be subject to prosecution pursuant to the CSA.

2. Disposal of stocks. Any person who does not desire or is not able to obtain a schedule I registration to handle MAB-CHMINACA, must surrender all quantities of currently held MAB-CHMINACA.

3. Security. MAB-CHMINACA is subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823, 871(b), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93, as of February 5, 2016.

4. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of MAB-CHMINACA must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825, 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302. Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from February 5, 2016, to comply with all labeling and packaging requirements.

5. Quota. Only registered manufacturers may manufacture MAB-CHMINACA in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303 as of February 5, 2016.

6. Inventory. Every DEA registrant who possesses any quantity of MAB-CHMINACA on the effective date of this order, must take an inventory of all stocks of this substance on hand, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11. Current DEA registrants shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all inventory requirements. After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including MAB-CHMINACA) on hand on a biennial basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

7. Records. All DEA registrants must maintain records with respect to MAB-CHMINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312, 1317 and § 1307.11. Current DEA registrants authorized to handle MAB-CHMINACA shall have 30 calendar days from the effective date of this order to be in compliance with all recordkeeping requirements.

8. Reports. All DEA registrants who manufacture or distribute MAB-CHMINACA must submit reports pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304 and 1312 as of February 5, 2016.

9. Order Forms. All DEA registrants who distribute MAB-CHMINACA must comply with order form requirements pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1305 as of February 5, 2016.

10. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of MAB-CHMINACA must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312 as of February 5, 2016.

11. Liability. Any activity involving MAB-CHMINACA not authorized by, or in violation of the CSA, occurring as of February 5, 2016, is unlawful, and may subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

Regulatory Analyses

Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action final order is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action will not 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule this substance immediately because it poses a public health risk. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to move quickly to place this substance into schedule I because it poses an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 1308.11 by adding paragraph (h)(25) to read as follows:
§ 1308.11 Schedule I.

(h) * * *

(25) N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide, its optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers (Other names: MAB-CHMINACA; ADB-CHMINACA) (7032)

Dated: February 2, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02302 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-385E] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Extension of Temporary Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act AGENCY:

Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this final order to extend the temporary schedule I status of four synthetic cannabinoids pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. The substances are: quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC); quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA); and N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA), including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers. The current final order temporarily placing PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA into schedule I is in effect through February 9, 2016. This final order will extend the temporary scheduling of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA for one year, or until the permanent scheduling action for these four substances is completed, whichever occurs first.

DATES:

This final order is effective February 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Authority

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA published the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II.

The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while ensuring an adequate supply is available for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated her scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

Background

On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR 1308.11(h) to temporarily place the four synthetic cannabinoids quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC); quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA); and N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA), into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 7577. That final order was effective on the date of publication, and was based on findings by the Deputy Administrator of the DEA that the temporary scheduling of these four synthetic cannabinoids was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Section 201(h)(2) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), requires that the temporary control of these substances expire two years from the effective date of the scheduling order, which was February 10, 2014. However, the CSA also provides that during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to the substance, the temporary scheduling of that substance could be extended for up to one year. Proceedings for the scheduling of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on his or her own motion, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services,1 or on the petition of any interested party.

1 Because the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations, for purposes of this final order, all subsequent references to “Secretary” have been replaced with “Assistant Secretary.”

The Administrator of the DEA, on his own motion pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), has initiated proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA. The DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these four synthetic cannabinoids. On December 30, 2014, the DEA submitted a request to the HHS to provide the DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA, and in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 (b) and (c). Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on January 19, 2016, the HHS submitted to the Administrator of the DEA its four scientific and medical evaluations for these substances. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations from the HHS, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c). The DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA into schedule I elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the Administrator of the DEA orders that the temporary scheduling of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, be extended for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.

In accordance with this final order, the schedule I requirements for handling PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA, including their optical, positional and geometric isomers, salts, and salts of isomers, will remain in effect for one year, or until the permanent scheduling proceeding is completed, whichever occurs first.

Regulatory Matters

The CSA provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Id. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) also provides that the temporary scheduling of a substance shall expire at the end of two years from the date of the issuance of the order scheduling such substance, except that the Attorney General may, during the pendency of proceedings to permanently schedule the substance, extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year.

To the extent that 21 U.S.C. 811(h) directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued and extended, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this extension of the temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for extending the temporary scheduling order would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Further, the DEA believes that this final order extending the temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This action will not 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to maintain the temporary placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA in schedule I because they pose a public health risk. The temporary scheduling action was taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Under 21 U.S.C. 811(h), temporary scheduling orders are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The DEA understands that the CSA frames temporary scheduling actions as orders rather than rules to ensure that the process moves swiftly, and this extension of the temporary scheduling order continues to serve that purpose. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the need to place these substances in schedule I because they pose an imminent hazard to public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of this extension of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, in accordance with section 808(2) of the CRA, this final order extending the temporary scheduling order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this final order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.

Dated: February 2, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02308 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1952 [Docket No. OSHA-2015-0003] RIN 1218-AC97 Maine State Plan for State and Local Government Employers AGENCY:

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document announces the publication of the regulatory provisions which formalize the initial approval of the Maine State and Local Government Only State Plan.

DATES:

Effective February 5, 2016. Initial approval of the Maine State Plan was granted on August 5, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For press inquiries: Contact Francis Meilinger, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email [email protected]

For general and technical information: Contact Douglas J. Kalinowski, Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2200; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

On May 20, 2015, OSHA published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 28890) concerning the submission of the Maine State and Local Government Only State Plan, announcing that initial Federal approval of the Plan was at issue, and offering interested parties an opportunity to review the Plan and submit data, views, arguments or requests for a hearing concerning the Plan. No comments were received.

OSHA, after carefully reviewing the Maine State Plan for the development and enforcement of state standards applicable to state and local government employers and the record developed during the above described proceedings, determined that the requirements and criteria for initial approval of a developmental State Plan were met. The Plan was approved as a developmental State Plan for State and Local Government Only under Section 18 of the OSH Act on August 5, 2015. (80 FR 46487).

B. Notice of Publication of the Regulatory Description of the Maine State Plan

In light of the reorganization of the State Plan regulations through the streamlining of 29 CFR part 1952 and 29 CFR part 1956, OSHA deferred any change to those regulatory provisions relating to the Maine State Plan until the streamlining changes took effect. (80 FR 46487, 46492). These streamlining changes took effect October 19, 2015. (80 FR 49897, Aug. 18, 2015). Therefore OSHA is now amending 29 CFR part 1952 to incorporate the description of the Maine State Plan.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

OSHA certifies pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the initial approval of the Maine State Plan will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By its own terms, the Plan will have no effect on private sector employment, but is limited to the state and its political subdivisions. Moreover, Title 26, Labor and Industry, of the Maine Revised Statutes was enacted in 1971. This legislation established the Board, whose purpose is to formulate rules that shall, at a minimum, conform with Federal standards of occupational safety and health, so the state program could eventually be approved as a State and Local Government Only State Plan. Since 1971 the Maine program for public employers has been in operation under the Maine Department of Labor with state funding and all state and local government employers in the state have been subject to its terms. Compliance with state OSHA standards is required by state law; Federal approval of a State Plan imposes regulatory requirements only on the agency responsible for administering the State Plan. Accordingly, no new obligations would be placed on public sector employers as a result of Federal approval of the Plan.

D. Federalism

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” emphasizes consultation between Federal agencies and the states and establishes specific review procedures the Federal Government must follow as it carries out policies that affect state or local governments. OSHA has consulted extensively with Maine throughout the development, submission and consideration of its State Plan. Although OSHA has determined that the requirements and consultation procedures provided in Executive Order 13132 are not applicable to initial approval decisions under the OSH Act, which have no effect outside the particular state receiving the approval, OSHA has reviewed this final rule, and believes it is consistent with the principles and criteria set forth in the Executive Order.

E. Administrative Procedures

This Federal Register document is designated a “final rule.” That designation is necessary because OSHA publishes a description of every state plan in 29 CFR part 1952. Because they are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, these descriptions can be added or updated only by publishing a “final rule” document in the final rules section of the Federal Register. Such rules do not contain any new Federal regulatory requirements, but merely provide public information about the state plan.

Today's action is solely a formalization of the initial approval of the Maine State Plan, which was granted on August 5, 2015 (80 FR 46487).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952

Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety and health.

Authority and Signature

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and 29 CFR parts 1902 and 1956.

Signed in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Amendments to Regulation

For the reasons set forth in the preamble of this final rule, 29 CFR part 1952 is amended as set forth below.

PART 1952—APPROVED STATE PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 1952 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part 1902; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

Subpart B—List of Approved State Plans for State and Local Government Employees 2. Add § 1952.28 to read as follows:
§ 1952.28 Maine.

(a) The Maine State Plan for State and local government employees received initial approval from the Assistant Secretary on August 5, 2015.

(b) The Plan further provides assurances of a fully trained, adequate staff within three years of plan approval, including 2 safety and 1 health compliance officers for enforcement inspections, and 3 safety and 1 health consultants to perform consultation services in the public sector. The State has assured that it will continue to provide a sufficient number of adequately trained and qualified personnel necessary for the enforcement of standards as required by 29 CFR 1956.10. The State has also given satisfactory assurance of adequate funding to support the Plan.

(c) The plan only covers State and local government employers and employees within the State. For additional details about the plan, please visit https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/maine.html.

[FR Doc. 2016-02069 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0046] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, South Branch of the Elizabeth River, Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Norfolk and Western railroad bridge (Norfolk Southern V6.8 Bridge) across the South Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile 3.6, at Portsmouth-Chesapeake, VA. The deviation is necessary to perform bridge maintenance and repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on February 5, 2016 to 7 p.m. on February 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation [USCG-2016-0046] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6222, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Norfolk Southern Corporation, that owns and operates the Norfolk and Western railroad bridge (Norfolk Southern V6.8 Bridge), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to install new festoon systems between the bridge towers. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(b). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. from February 5, 2016 through February 7, 2016. During this temporary deviation, the bridge will operate per 33 CFR 117.997(b) from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.

The South Branch of the Elizabeth River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users.

There will be limited opportunity for vessels to transit through the bridge in the closed position during this temporary deviation. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Dated: January 28, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-02100 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1125] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate; Chauvin, LA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on all navigable waters within a 750 foot radius around the center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with repair work on the Boudreaux Canal Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou. During the periods of enforcement, entry into and transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City or other designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from February 5, 2016 until February 27, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 6, 2016 until February 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1125 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Vanessa Taylor, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard MSU Morgan City 800 David Dr., Morgan City, LA 70380; telephone (985) 380-5334, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because repair work on the Boudreaux Canal Sector Flood Gates located on Bayou Petite Caillou needs to be completed before marine traffic increases during the extremely high traffic periods of the upcoming shrimping season. The Coast Guard received notice of the need for this repair December 16, 2015. Repair work pushed to any later date will unnecessarily create major traffic delays. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by January 6, 2016.We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to provide additional safety measure during the repair work so that it may be completed before the high traffic periods during the upcoming shrimping season.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The purpose of the rule is to establish the necessary temporary safety zone to provide protection for persons and property from the hazards associated with the repairs. This includes commercial and recreational vessels that may be in the area during the repair, removal and re-installation of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016 and from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29°23.117 N., 90°37.038 W. which is located in center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates. This safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the inspection, repair, removal, and re-installation of flood gates occurs. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and traffic during the time-of-year of the safety zone. The safety zone only impacts a small designated area of the Waterway in Chauvin, LA during two scheduled time periods. First, during 10 days from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016; and second during 9 days from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016. This is a time of year when vessel traffic is normally low. Additionally, vessel traffic will be allowed to transit from January 16, 2016 through February 17, 2016, mid-way through the repair timeline. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 informing waterway users of the safety zone and any changes in the schedule. Finally, the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 20 days that will prohibit entry within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29°23.117 N., 90°37.038 W., which is located in the center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (waters), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T08-1121 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-1121 Safety Zone; Bayou Petite Caillou, Boudreaux Canal Floodgate; Chauvin, LA.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters within a 750 foot radius around coordinate 29°23.117 N., 90°37.038 W., which is located in the center of the Boudreaux Canal Flood Gates in Chauvin, LA.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) Morgan City in the enforcement of the safety zones.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, you may not enter the safety zones described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City at 985-380-5334. Those in the safety zones must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from January 6, 2016 through January 15, 2016, and from February 18, 2016 through February 27, 2016.

(e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zones as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

Dated: January 5, 2016. D.G. McClellan, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Morgan City, Louisiana.
[FR Doc. 2016-02281 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0028] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Hudson River, Anchorage Ground 19-W AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the waters of the Hudson River in the vicinity of Anchorage Ground 19-W. This zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Hudson River due to the presence of a dielectric oil leak from a submerged power cable, and the hazards associated with the cable repair vessels. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect people and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New York.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from February 5, 2016 through July 9, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 12, 2016 through February 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0028 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Kristina Pundt, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York; telephone 718-354-4352, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard received notification of the dielectric oil release from a submerged power cable on January 2, 2016. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from the possible hazards associated with this dielectric oil leak and the hazards associated with the cable repairs.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels from the hazards associated with this dielectric oil leak and power cable repairs.

Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movements around the location of the dielectric oil leak will help ensure the safety of persons and property during assessment and response activities and help minimize the associated risks. Therefore, this rule will remain in effect for the time stated herein but will be cancelled if response activities are finished cease before July 9, 2016. The preliminary estimate for completion of the clean-up and cable repairs is February 11, 2016. This TFR provides for an extended enforcement period in case of unforeseen circumstances that prevent the contractors from completing the repairs within their initial estimated timeline.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

This rule establishes a safety zone from January 12, 2016 through July 9, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Anchorage Ground 19-W and the Hudson River within an area approximately 870-930 yards wide and 1,330-1,335 yards long near Edgewater, NJ.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. The COTP or an on-scene representative may be contacted by VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, and will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone. This safety zone only affects a small-designated area of the Hudson River waterway for a relatively short duration. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for approximately 30 days that will prohibit entry within the dielectric oil spill, cleanup, and power cable repair area, and is therefore categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T01-0028 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01-0028 Safety Zone: Hudson River, Anchorage Ground 19-W.

(a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of the Hudson River bound by the following points: 40°48′56.00″ N., 073°58′47.08″ W.; thence to 40°48′42.96″ N., 073°58′15.00″ W.; thence to 40°48′08.04″ N., 073°58′38.82″ W.; thence to 40°48′19.84″ N., 073°59′09.31″ W., thence along the western shoreline to the point of origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).

(b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from January 12, 2016 until July 9, 2016, unless terminated sooner by the COTP.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or his designated on scene representative.

(2) A “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the COTP to act on his behalf.

(3) Vessel operators must contact the COTP via the Command Center to obtain permission to enter or operate within the safety zone. The COTP may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (718) 354-4353. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate within the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP, via the Command Center or an on-scene representative.

Dated: January 12, 2016. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2016-02276 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 45 CFR Part 1611 Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance AGENCY:

Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC or the Corporation) is required by law to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. This document updates the specified income levels to reflect the annual amendments to the Federal Poverty Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

DATES:

Effective February 5, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1563; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 1007(a)(2) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(2), requires the Corporation to establish maximum income levels for individuals eligible for legal assistance. Section 1611.3(c) of the Corporation's regulations establishes a maximum income level equivalent to one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (Guidelines), which HHS is responsible for updating and issuing. 45 CFR 1611.3(c).

Each year, LSC publishes an update to Appendix A of 45 CFR part 1611 to provide client income eligibility standards based on the most recent Guidelines. The figures for 2016, set out below, are equivalent to 125 percent (125%) of the current Guidelines published by HHS on January 25, 2016 (81 FR 4036).

In addition, LSC is publishing a chart listing income levels that are two hundred percent (200%) of the Guidelines. This chart is for reference purposes only as an aid to grant recipients in assessing the financial eligibility of an applicant whose income is greater than 125 percent (125%) of the applicable Guidelines amount, but less than 200 percent (200%) of the applicable Guidelines amount (and who may be found to be financially eligible under duly adopted exceptions to the annual income ceiling in accordance with 45 CFR 1611.3, 1611.4, and 1611.5).

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1611

Grant programs—law, Legal services.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, the Legal Services Corporation amends 45 CFR part 1611 as follows:

PART 1611—FINANCIAL ELIGIBILITY 1. The authority citation for part 1611 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996e(b)(3), 2996f(a)(1), 2996f(a)(2), 2996g(e); Sec. 509(h), Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321; Pub. L. 105-119, 11 Stat. 2512.

2. Revise Appendix A to part 1611 to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 1611— Income Level for Individuals Eligible for Assistance Legal Services Corporation 2016 Income Guidelines * Size of household 48 Contiguous states and the District of
  • Columbia
  • Alaska Hawaii
    1 $14,850 $18,550 $17,088 2 20,025 25,025 23,038 3 25,200 31,500 28,988 4 30,375 37,975 34,938 5 35,550 44,450 40,888 6 40,725 50,925 46,838 7 45,913 57,400 52,788 8 51,113 63,900 58,763 For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add 5,200 6,500 5,975 * The figures in this table represent 125% of the poverty guidelines by household size as determined by HHS.
    Reference Chart—200% of Federal Poverty Guidelines Size of household 48 Contiguous states and the District of
  • Columbia
  • Alaska Hawaii
    1 $23,760 $29,680 $27,340 2 32,040 40,040 36,860 3 40,320 50,400 46,380 4 48,600 60,760 55,900 5 56,880 71,120 65,420 6 65,160 81,480 74,940 7 73,460 91,840 84,460 8 81,780 102,240 94,020 For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add 8,320 10,400 9,560
    Dated: February 2, 2016. Stefanie K. Davis, Assistant General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02241 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    81 24 Friday, February 5, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 7 CFR Part 800 RIN 0580-AB13 Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act Correction

    In Proposed Rule document 2016-01083 beginning on page 3970 in the issue of Monday, January 25, 2016, make the following correction:

    On page 3975, in the third column, preceding amendatory instruction 7 insert the following text:

    § 800.72 [Amended]

    ▪ 6. In § 800.72(b), remove the reference “§ 800.71” from the first sentence and add in its place the reference “§ 800.71(a)(1)”.

    [FR Doc. C1-2016-01083 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2013-0828; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-036-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2009-15-17 to continue to require inspections for damage to the protective treatments or any corrosion of all main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, application of protective treatments, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the MLG bogie beams, to allow optional methods of compliance for certain actions, and to add airplanes to the applicability. The first supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposed to revise the compliance times and add a one-time inspection for certain airplanes. The NPRM was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced MLG bogie beams. This second SNPRM proposes to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. We are proposing this second SNPRM to detect and correct damage or corrosion of the MLG bogie beams, which could cause a runway excursion event, bogie beam detachment from the airplane, or MLG collapse, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the first SNPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by March 21, 2016.

    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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For Airbus service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.airbus.com.

    For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this NPRM, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone 703-450-8233; fax 703-404-1621; Internet: https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.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-2013-0828; 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 (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1138; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2013-0828; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-036-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 based on 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 issued an SNPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model A330-200 and A330-300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2014 (79 FR 12414).

    We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58978). The NPRM was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced MLG bogie beams. The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009), to continue to require inspections for damage to the protective treatments or any corrosion of all MLG bogie beams, application of protective treatments, and corrective action if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the MLG bogie beams, which would terminate the repetitive inspections for any modified bogie beam. In addition, the NPRM proposed to allow optional methods of compliance for certain actions, and to add Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes to the applicability.

    The SNPRM (79 FR 12414, March 5, 2014) (“the first SNPRM”) proposed to revise the compliance times and add a one-time inspection for airplanes that were inspected too early.

    Actions Since the First SNPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the first SNPRM, we have determined that it is necessary to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2013-0267R1, dated March 4, 2014, Corrected May 8, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, -200, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The operator of an A330 aeroplane (which has a common bogie beam with the A340) reported a fracture of the Right Hand (RH) main landing gear (MLG) bogie beam, which occurred while turning during low speed taxi maneuvers. The bogie fractured aft of the pivot point and remained attached to the sliding tube by the brake torque reaction rods. After this RH bogie failure, the aeroplane continued for approximately 40 meters on the forks of the sliding member before coming to rest on the taxiway.

    The investigations revealed that this event was due to corrosion pitting occurring on the bore of the bogie beam.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a runway excursion event or to detachment of the bogie from the aeroplane, or to MLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury to the occupants.

    To enable early detection and repair of corrosion of the internal surfaces, EASA issued EASA AD 2007-0314 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2007-0314R1] to require a one-time inspection of all MLG bogie beams, except Enhanced MLG bogie beams, and the reporting of the results to Airbus. EASA AD 2007-0314 was revised and later superseded by EASA AD 2008-0093 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2008-0093], reducing the inspection threshold period.

    The results of subsequent investigations showed thin paint coats and paint degradation, confirmed as well on Enhanced MLG bogie beams. To address this additional concern, EASA issued AD 2011-0141 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2011-0141] [which was not mandated by the FAA], retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0093, which was superseded, to require a one-time visual inspection of all MLG bogie beams, including a visual examination of the internal diameter for corrosion or damage to protective treatments of the bogie beam and measurement of the paint thickness on the internal bore, accomplishment of the applicable corrective actions and a modification of the MLG bogie beam to improve the coat paint application method, and application of corrosion protection.

    Prompted by in-service requests, EASA issued EASA AD 2012-0015 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2012-0015] [corresponds with FAA NPRM (78 FR 58978, September 25, 2013)] retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0141, which was superseded, and introducing repetitive inspections of the MLG bogie beams, which allows extension of the compliance time for the MLG bogie beam modification from 15 years to 21 years. Modification of a MLG bogie beam constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections for that MLG bogie beam.

    Reports on inspection results provided to Airbus show that some aeroplanes were initially inspected too early (before 4 years and 6 months since aeroplane first flight with bogie beam installed/installed after overhaul) and have not been re-inspected as required.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0015, which is superseded, and redefines the inspection periodicity. This [EASA] AD also introduces a specific one-time inspection for aeroplanes that have been inspected too early.

    Prompted by operator comments, this [EASA] AD is revised to clarify the required actions and the specific configurations to which the actions must be applied. Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD has been amended accordingly.

    This [EASA] AD is republished to editorially correct paragraph (4).

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0828.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Airbus service information.

    • Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012. The service information describes procedures for cleaning the internal bore and accomplishing a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measuring the paint thickness on the internal bore.

    • Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam and repair, as well as modification and re-identification.

    • Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013. The service information describes procedures for cleaning the internal bore and accomplishing a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measuring the paint thickness on the internal bore.

    • Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011. The service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, repair, modification, and reidentification.

    We reviewed the following Messier-Dowty service bulletins.

    • Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2007. The service information describes procedures for inspections and corrective actions on both MLG bogie beams.

    • Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008. The service information describes procedures for inspections and corrective actions on both MLG bogie beams.

    • Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011. The service information describes procedures for inspections for damage and corrosion to the protective treatment of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, and repairs.

    • Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283, including Appendix A, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams.

    • Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-284, including Appendix A, Revision 1, dated July 10, 2012. The service information describes procedures for modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams.

    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.

    Change to the First SNPRM

    Since the first SNPRM was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM) have been redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this proposed AD.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We considered the comment received.

    Request To Revise Paragraph (l) of the Proposed AD (in the First SNPRM)

    Air France requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM) by changing the references to paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) to refer to paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2).

    We agree that the optional terminating action paragraph should refer to the optional methods of compliance paragraphs, which are paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of the proposed AD (in the first SNPRM). However, no change to this proposed AD is necessary because those paragraphs have been redesignated as paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2).

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the first SNPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

    Differences Between This SNPRM and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies repair and corrective actions in accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 02, dated October 26, 2012; or A340-32-4268, Revision 03, dated January 14, 2013. However, Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletins A330-32-3225, Revision 02, dated October 26, 2012; and A340-32-4268, Revision 03, dated January 14, 2013; do not describe repair and corrective actions. Paragraphs (i) and (j) of this proposed AD specify repair and corrective actions in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendices A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008. This difference has been coordinated with Airbus.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 51 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 34 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $151,725, or $2,975 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 10 work-hours, for a cost of $850 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    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 proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed 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 proposed 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0828; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-036-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 21, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN), except those on which Airbus modification 58896 has been embodied in production.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F, -243F, -201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of thin paint coats and paint degradation on enhanced main landing gear (MLG) bogie beams, as well as reports that some airplanes have been inspected too early and not re-inspected as needed. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct damage or corrosion of the MLG bogie beams, which could cause a runway excursion event, bogie beam detachment from the airplane, or MLG collapse, and could result in damage to the airplane and injury to the occupants.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Repetitive Inspections for Certain Airplane Configurations

    For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), or growth MLG (201490 series): After 54 months at the earliest, but no later than 72 months since the left-hand (LH) or right-hand (RH) MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul, as applicable, clean the internal bore and accomplish a detailed inspection of internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measure the paint thickness on the internal bore, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013; as applicable. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not less than 54 months, but not exceeding 72 months, after the most recent inspection. During overhaul of a MLG bogie beam, any corrosion will be removed, which means that the first inspection after overhaul of that MLG bogie beam, as required by this paragraph, is between 54 months and 72 months since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul.

    (h) One-Time Detailed Inspection for Certain Airplane Configurations

    For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), or growth MLG (201490 series) having a LH or RH MLG bogie beam that has already exceeded 72 months since its first flight on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after overhaul, as applicable, as of the effective date of this AD; and that has been inspected as specified in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225 or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, as applicable, earlier than 54 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight on an airplane after its most recent overhaul, as applicable: Within the applicable compliance time indicated in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD, clean the internal bore and accomplish a detailed inspection of the internal surfaces of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams to detect any damage to the protective treatments and any corrosion, and measure the paint thickness on the internal bore, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 3, dated January 14, 2013; as applicable.

    (1) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 9 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (ii) MLG bogie beams on which the first inspection was done after 51 months and before 54 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (2) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (ii) MLG bogie beams on which the first inspection was done after 45 months and before 51 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (3) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 3 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) MLG bogie beams having between 72 and 96 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (ii) MLG bogie beams which has accumulated, at the effective date of this AD, less than 96 months and on which the first inspection was done before 51 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (4) For MLG bogie beams having the configurations specified in both paragraphs (h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii) of this AD: Do the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD within 1 month after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) MLG bogie beams having between 96 and 120 months since first flight on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (ii) MLG bogie beams which has accumulated, at the effective date of this AD, 96 months or more and on which the first inspection was done before 45 months since first flight of the MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight on an airplane after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (i) Application of Protective Treatment

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, no damage or corrosion is found, before further flight, apply the protective treatments to the MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.

    (j) Repair and Application of Protective Treatment

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, any damage or corrosion is found, before further flight, repair and apply the protective treatments to the MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008.

    (k) Inspection and Corrective Actions

    For airplanes equipped with basic MLG (201252 series), growth MLG (201490 series), or enhanced MLG (10-210 series): Before the accumulation of 252 total months on an MLG bogie beam, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD concurrently and in sequence.

    (1) Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for damage and corrosion of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable. If any damage or corrosion is found, before further flight, repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.

    (2) Except as provided by paragraph (k)(3) of this AD: Modify and re-identify, as applicable, the LH and RH MLG bogie beams, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.

    (3) The inspection requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, and the modification requirements only of paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, do not apply to any MLG bogie beam with a serial number listed in Appendix A of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012, as applicable.

    (l) Optional Methods of Compliance for Certain Airplane Configurations

    Inspections and corrective actions on both MLG bogie beams done in accordance with the instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, Revision 1, dated November 16, 2007; or A33/34-32-272, Revision 1, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated September 22, 2008; as applicable; are acceptable methods of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided each inspection is accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since the first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since the MLG bogie beam's first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable.

    (m) Reporting

    (1) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (g) or (k) of this AD, as applicable, to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, using the applicable reporting sheet in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, Revision 1, dated October 14, 2011; at the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (m)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.

    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus, Customer Service Directorate, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, using the applicable reporting sheet in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both dated January 18, 2011, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(2)(i) or (m)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (n) Optional Method of Compliance

    (1) Inspections for damage and corrosion to the protective treatment of the internal bores of the LH and RH MLG bogie beam, and repairs, done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011, are acceptable methods of compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

    (2) Modification of the LH and RH MLG bogie beams, done in accordance with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletins A33/34-32-283 and A33/34-32-284, both including Appendix A, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012, as applicable, is an acceptable method of compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (k)(2) of this AD.

    (o) Optional Terminating Action

    Modification of both LH and RH MLG bogie beams on an airplane, done in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD, or as specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for this airplane.

    (p) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding inspections and corrective actions done on an LH or RH MLG bogie beam required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, dated November 21, 2007; or Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008; provided the inspections and corrective actions were accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, dated November 21, 2007, is not incorporated by reference in this AD. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3225, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-15-07, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding inspections and corrective actions done on an LH or RH MLG bogie beam required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, dated November 21, 2007; Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008; or Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; provided these inspections and corrective actions were accomplished between 54 months and 72 months since first flight of the affected MLG bogie beam on an airplane, or since its first flight after the MLG bogie beam's most recent overhaul, as applicable. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, dated November 21, 2007; and Revision 2, dated October 26, 2012; are not incorporated by reference in this AD. Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4268, Revision 1, dated October 30, 2008, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-15-17, Amendment 39-15980 (74 FR 37523, July 29, 2009).

    (3) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraph (n)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-271, dated September 13, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (j) and (n)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-272, including Appendixes A, B, C, and D, dated November 16, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (5) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k), (m), and (r)(1)(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237, dated January 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (6) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k), (m), and (r)(1)(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-32-4279, dated January 18, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (7) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k)(3), (n)(2), (r)(1)(ii), and (r)(1)(iii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283, including Appendix A, dated May 11, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (8) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (k)(3), (n)(2), (r)(1)(ii), and (r)(1)(iii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-284, including Appendix A, dated May 11, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (9) This paragraph provides credit for the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (r)(1)(ii) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, including Appendixes A and B, dated February 17, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (q) Clarification of Inspection Compliance Times

    After accomplishment of the one-time detailed inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD remain applicable, and must be done within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (r) Parts Installation Limitations

    (1) After modification of an airplane, as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, or as specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this AD, do not install an MLG bogie beam on any airplane unless it is done in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (r)(1)(i), (r)(1)(ii), or (r)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) The MLG bogie beam has been modified and re-identified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-32-3237 or A340-32-4279, both Revision 1, both dated October 14, 2011, as applicable.

    (ii) The MLG bogie beam has been inspected and all applicable corrective actions have been done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-278, Revision 1, dated August 24, 2011; and modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012.

    (iii) The MLG bogie beam has a serial number listed in Appendix A of Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin A33/34-32-283 or A33/34-32-284, both Revision 1, both dated July 10, 2012.

    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (r)(1) of this AD, installation of an MLG bogie beam on an airplane is allowed, provided that following the installation it is inspected and all applicable repairs and corrective actions have been done in accordance with the requirements of this AD.

    (s) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2013-0267R1, dated March 4, 2014, corrected March 8, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-0828.

    (2) For Airbus service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (3) For Messier-Dowty service information identified in this AD, contact Messier-Dowty: Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way, Sterling, VA 20166-8910; telephone 703-450-8233; fax 703-404-1621; Internet https://techpubs.services/messier-dowty.com.

    (4) You may view this 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 January 27, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02161 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. DEA-433] Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA into Schedule I AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration proposes placing quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC), quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22), N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA) and N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This proposed scheduling action is pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act which requires that such actions be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing through formal rulemaking. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances on persons who handle (manufacture, distribute, import, export, engage in research, conduct instructional activities or chemical analysis, or possess), or propose to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA.

    DATES:

    Interested persons may file written comments on this proposal in accordance with 21 CFR 1308.43(g). Comments must be submitted electronically or postmarked on or before March 7, 2016. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.

    Interested persons, defined at 21 CFR 1300.01 as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811),” may file a request for hearing or waiver of hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.44 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1316.45 and/or 1316.47, as applicable. Requests for hearing and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing must be received on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “Docket No. DEA-433” on all electronic and written correspondence, including any attachments.

    Electronic comments: The Drug Enforcement Administration encourages that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon completion of your submission you will receive a Comment Tracking Number for your comment. Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously available for public view on Regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

    Paper comments: Paper comments that duplicate the electronic submission are not necessary. Should you wish to mail a paper comment, in lieu of an electronic comment, it should be sent via regular or express mail to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    Hearing requests: All requests for a hearing and waivers of participation must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing and waivers of participation should be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

    If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

    Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

    An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

    Request for Hearing, or Waiver of Participation in Hearing

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. In accordance with 21 CFR 1308.44(a)-(c), requests for hearing, notices of appearance, and waivers of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing may be submitted only by interested persons, defined as those “adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable pursuant to section 201 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 811).” 21 CFR 1300.01. Such requests or notices must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and 1316.47 or 1316.48, as applicable, and include a statement of interest of the person in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any waiver must conform to the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(c) and may include a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing.

    Please note that pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), the purpose and subject matter of a hearing held in relation to this rulemaking is restricted to: “(A) find[ing] that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) mak[ing] with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” All requests for hearing and waivers participation must be sent to the DEA using the address information provided above.

    Legal Authority

    The DEA implements and enforces Titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

    Under the CSA, controlled substances are classified into one of five schedules based upon their potential for abuse, their currently accepted medical use, and the degree of dependence the substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may, by rule, “add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed * * *.” The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

    The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on her own motion; (2) at the request of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 1 or (3) on the petition of any interested party. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This proposed action is supported by a recommendation from the Assistant Secretary of the HHS and an evaluation of all other relevant data by the DEA. If finalized, this action would impose the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions of schedule I controlled substances on any person who handles or proposes to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA.

    1 As discussed in a memorandum of understanding entered into by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the FDA acts as the lead agency within the HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518, Mar. 8, 1985. The Secretary of the HHS has delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the HHS the authority to make domestic drug scheduling recommendations. 58 FR 35460, July 1, 1993.

    Background

    On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order in the Federal Register amending 21 CFR 1308.11(h) to temporarily place quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC); quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22); N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA); and N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA) into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 7577. That final order, which became effective on the date of publication, was based on findings by the Deputy Administrator of the DEA that the temporary scheduling of these four synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) was necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). At the time the final order took effect, section 201(h)(2) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), required that the temporary scheduling of a substance expire at the end of two years from the date of issuance of the scheduling order, and it provided that, during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to the substance, temporary scheduling of that substance could be extended for up to 1 year. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the temporary scheduling of PB-22; QUPIC, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA expires on February 9, 2016, unless extended. An extension of the temporary order is being ordered by the DEA Administrator in a separate action.

    These four SCs have not been investigated for medical use nor are they intended for human use. With no known legitimate use and safety information, manufacturers are surreptitiously adulterating plant material with these SCs and distributors are selling the associated products which pose potentially dangerous consequences to the consumer.

    The Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has advised that there are no exemptions or approvals in effect for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA under section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. As stated by the HHS, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA have no known accepted medical use. They are not the subject of any approved new drug applications (NDAs) or investigational new drug applications (INDs), and are not currently marketed as approved drug products. The HHS recommends that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, ADB-PINACA, and their salts be placed into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

    Proposed Determination To Schedule PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), proceedings to add a drug or substance to those controlled under the CSA may be initiated by the Attorney General, or her delegate, the DEA Administrator. On December 30, 2014, the DEA requested scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the Assistant Secretary of Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b). Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluations and scheduling recommendations from the HHS dated January 19, 2016, the DEA reviewed the documents and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by the HHS and the DEA, and as considered by the DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA 8-Factor and HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's January 19, 2016, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number “DEA-433.”

    1. The Drug's Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse: The term “abuse” is not defined in the CSA. However, the legislative history of the CSA suggests that the DEA consider the following criteria in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse 2 :

    2 Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong., Sess. 1 (1970); reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4603.

    (a) There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or of the community; or

    (b) There is significant diversion of the drug or drugs containing such a substance from legitimate drug channels; or

    (c) Individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice; or

    (d) The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

    Review of scientific and medical literature indicates that the ingestion of synthetic cannabinoids leads to adverse health effects. Specifically, adverse effects following ingestion have included: Seizures, neurotoxicity and death for PB-22; respiratory failure, organ failure, and death for 5F-PB-22; diaphoresis, nausea, confusion, tachycardia and death for AB-FUBINACA; and anxiety, delirium, psychosis, aggression, seizures and death for ADB-PINACA.

    The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) has reported 7,779 exposures to SCs from January 1 through December 31, 2015. The significance of this value is based upon reporting of human exposures to SCs since 2011. While 2012-2014 saw a reduction in exposure calls to the AAPCC, 2015 records demonstrate resurgence in calls to poison centers regarding SCs. In addition, the largest monthly tally ever recorded by AAPCC in reference to SCs occurred in April 2015, with 1,511 calls.

    The HHS stated that there are no FDA-approved drug products containing PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA in the United States and there appear to be no legitimate sources for these substances as marketed drugs. According to the HHS, because PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA are not approved for medical use and are not formulated or available for clinical use, the human use of these substances is assumed to be on an individual's own initiative, rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer drugs. Further, AAPCC reports, published scientific and medical literature, and law enforcement reports indicate that individuals are taking these SCs on their own initiative, rather than on the medical advice of a licensed practitioner. As noted by the HHS, pharmacological studies sponsored by NIDA have demonstrated that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA are similar to other schedule I SCs. All four of these substances, similar to other schedule I SCs, display high affinity binding and potent agonist functional activity at the cannabinoid (CB1) receptor, while drug discrimination studies have demonstrated the ability of all four substances to substitute for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (see Factor 2). The results supporting CB1 agonist activity of PB-22 and 5F-PB-22 are consistent with the similar findings reported in published literature.

    2. Scientific Evidence of the Drug's Pharmacological Effects, if Known: In vitro receptor binding and functional assays were conducted with PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA. In addition, drug discrimination assays using Sprague Dawley rats were performed to identify drugs with similar subjective effects to THC. These results indicate that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA, similar to other schedule I SCs, bind to CB1 receptors with high affinity and act as agonists at CB1 receptors.

    Based on results from the receptor binding (Ki), CB1 functional assay, and drug discrimination studies, the HHS concluded that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA act as full psychoactive cannabinoid agonists with no antagonist activity and that these four substances are more potent than THC, the principal psychoactive chemical in marijuana (schedule I), and are similar in activity to JWH-018 (schedule I).

    3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance: The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA or ADB-PINACA. A letter dated November 7, 2013 was sent from the DEA Deputy Administrator to the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department for Health and Human Services as notification of intent to temporarily place these four substances in schedule I and solicited information, including whether there was an exemption or approval in effect for the substances in question under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The Assistant Secretary of Health responded that there were no current INDs or NDAs for these synthetic cannabinoids in a letter to the DEA Assistant Administrator dated January 27, 2014. The scientific and medical evaluations provided by the HHS also stated that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA have no currently accepted medical use. These SCs are not the subject of an approved NDAs or INDs, and are not currently marketed as approved drug products. In recent overdoses, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA have been found to be laced on green plant material, similar to the SCs that have been previously encountered.

    4. Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse: Since the initial identification of JWH-018 (November 2008), many additional synthetic cannabinoids have been found to be applied on plant material and encountered as designer drug products. A major concern, as reiterated by public health officials and medical professionals, remains the targeting and direct marketing of SCs and SC-containing products to adolescents and youth. The Monitoring the Future project, begun in 1975, studies changes in beliefs, attitudes, and behavior of young people in the United States. While the Monitoring the Future survey reported decreases in prevalence amongst 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students over the past two years, AAPCC reports for SCs in 2015 were the highest observed since reporting began in 2011. Reports in 2015 more than doubled compared to those shown for 2011. Smoking mixtures of these substances abused for the purpose of achieving intoxication has resulted in numerous emergency department visits and calls to poison control centers. As reported by the AAPCC, adverse effects including severe agitation, anxiety, racing heartbeat, high blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, seizures, tremors, intense hallucinations, psychotic episodes, suicide, and other harmful thoughts and/or actions can occur following ingestion of SCs. Presentations at emergency departments directly linked to the abuse of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA have resulted in similar symptoms, including severe agitation, seizures, and/or death.

    5. The Scope, Duration, and Significance of Abuse: PB-22 and 5F-PB-22 are synthetic cannabinoids that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC. PB-22 and 5F-PB-22 were not reported in the scientific literature prior to their appearance on the illicit drug market. A report from March 2013 identified PB-22 as a component of dried plant material obtained via the Internet between July 2012 and January 2013 in Japan.

    AB-FUBINACA is also a synthetic cannabinoid that has pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen THC. First appearing in a 2009 patent filed by the pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer, AB-FUBINACA was first reported in the scientific literature as a component of so-called “herbal products” purchased via the Internet in July 2012.

    ADB-PINACA was first encountered in the United States following reports of serious adverse events in Georgia on August 23, 2013. Reports of ADB-PINACA were not found in the scientific literature prior to its emergence on the designer drug market. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) reported on September 12, 2013 that ADB-PINACA, was detected in “herbal incense” products sold under the brand name “Crazy Clown.” It was later confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the substance responsible for severe adverse events in at least 22 persons who consumed the product. In addition, on August 30, 2013, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) was notified by several hospitals of an increase in the number of patients visiting their emergency departments with altered mental status after using synthetic cannabinoids. On September 8, 2013, the CDPHE, with the assistance of the CDC, began an epidemiologic investigation whereby 221 cases of severe illness due to ingestion of a synthetic cannabinoid were identified. Those that presented at emergency rooms in the Denver, Colorado area around September 1, 2013 had symptoms similar to those found in the August 2013 Georgia incident. Laboratory analysis of samples from the Colorado incident confirmed that the substance abused in the “herbal incense” products was ADB-PINACA.

    The AAPCC report published on April 23, 2015 showed a marked spike in poison center exposure calls throughout the United States in 2015 related to SCs. The AAPCC reported 1,512 exposure calls in April 2015, representing an almost three-fold increase in exposures to SCs as compared to the previous largest monthly tally (657 exposures in January 2012) since reporting began in 2011. For the first time since reporting began by the AAPCC in 2011, the number of SC cases in 2015 has dramatically risen, more than doubling those reported in 2014. The numbers of SC cases reported in 2015 were the highest ever recorded.

    6. What, if Any, Risk There is to the Public Health: As stated by the HHS, based solely on their pharmacological similarity to JWH-018 and THC and their potency, the subjective risks to the public health of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA are similar to those of other SCs, which are controlled in schedule I of the CSA. Warnings regarding the dangers associated with abuse of synthetic cannabinoids and their products have been issued by numerous state public health departments and poison control centers and private organizations. Some of the common clinical effects reported in emergency rooms in response to the abuse of synthetic cannabinoids include vomiting, anxiety, agitation, irritability, seizures, hallucinations, tachycardia, elevated blood pressure, and loss of consciousness.

    At least ten deaths have been reported involving the four SCs, including at least 3 involving PB-22, 5 involving 5F-PB-22, 1 involving AB-FUBINACA, and 1 involving ADB-PINACA. As mentioned above, there are reported instances of emergency department admissions in association with the abuse of PB-22 and 5F-PB-22. Additional deaths involving a variety of SCs have been reported, along with additional instances of severe toxic effects following ingestion of SCs.

    7. Its Psychic or Physiological Dependence Liability: As stated by the HHS, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA have pharmacological profiles that are similar to other schedule I SCs. Thus it is reasonable to assume that PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA possess physiological and psychological dependence liability that is similar to that of other schedule I cannabinoids (THC and JWH-018). While PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA are pharmacologically related to JWH-018, no studies regarding the psychic or physiological dependence liability of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA have been identified.

    8. Whether the Substance is an Immediate Precursor of a Substance Already Controlled Under the CSA: PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA are not considered an immediate precursor of any controlled substance of the CSA.

    Conclusion: After considering the scientific and medical evaluation conducted by the HHS, the HHS's recommendation, and the DEA's own eight-factor analysis, the DEA finds that the facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of the potential for abuse of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA. As such, the DEA hereby proposes to schedule PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA as controlled substances under the CSA.

    Proposed Determination of Appropriate Schedule

    The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of the DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1), finds that:

    1. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA have a high potential for abuse that is comparable to other schedule I substances such as delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and JWH-018;

    2. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

    3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA under medical supervision.

    Based on these findings, the Administrator of the DEA concludes that quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22; QUPIC), quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22), N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA), and N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA), including their salts, isomers and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible, warrant control in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

    Requirements for Handling PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA

    If this rule is finalized as proposed, PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA would continue 3 to be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, importing, exporting, research, and conduct of instructional activities, including the following:

    3 PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA and ADB-PINACA are currently subject to schedule I controls on a temporary basis, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h). 79 FR 7577, Feb. 10, 2014.

    1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA, or who desires to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA, would be required to be registered with the DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

    2. Security. PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA would be subject to schedule I security requirements and would need to be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 821, 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.93.

    3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels and labeling for commercial containers of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(e), and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

    4. Quota. Only registered manufacturers would be permitted to manufacture PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

    5. Inventory. Any person who becomes registered with the DEA after the effective date of the final rule must take an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take a new inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and ADB-PINACA) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

    6. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant would be required to maintain records and submit reports with respect to PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and/or ADB-PINACA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and 958(e), and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

    7. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA would be required to comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828, and 21 CFR part 1305.

    8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA would need to be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

    9. Liability. Any activity involving PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA not authorized by, or in violation of, the CSA or its implementing regulations would be unlawful, and could subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

    Regulatory Analyses Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in Executive Order 13563.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    Executive Order 13175

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-602, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On February 10, 2014, the DEA published a final order to temporarily place these four SCs into schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). The DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle these SCs have already established and implemented the systems and processes required to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA. There are currently 25 registrations authorized to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, and/or ADB-PINACA specifically, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. These 25 registrations represent 18 entities, of which 8 are small entities. Therefore, the DEA estimates eight small entities are affected by this proposed rule.

    A review of the 25 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle PB-22, 5F-PB-22, AB-FUBINACA, or ADB-PINACA. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities; and thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the eight affected small entities. Therefore, the DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., the DEA has determined and certifies that this action would not result in 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 for inflation) in any one year * * *.” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. 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.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

    Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set out above, the DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

    PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1308 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 1308.11: a. Add new paragraphs (d)(48) through (d)(51); and b. Remove paragraphs (h)(7) through (10); and c. Redesignate paragraphs (h)(11) through (24) as (h)(7) through (20).

    The additions to read as follows:

    § 1308.11 Schedule I.

    (d) * * *

    (48) quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB-22) (7222) (49) quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB-22; 5F-PB-22) (7225) (50) N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB-FUBINACA) (7012) (51) N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB-PINACA) (7035)
    Dated: February 2, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02305 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1055] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, SC during the Charleston Race Week from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1055 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code COTP Captain of the Port II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On November 18, 2015, the Charleston Ocean Racing Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be sponsoring a series of sailboat races from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the Charleston Race Week.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation on the waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina during Charleston Race Week. The races are scheduled to take place from Friday, April 15, 2016 through Sunday, April 17, 2016. Approximately 285 sailboats are anticipated to participate in the races, and approximately 30 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07-1055 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-1055 Special Local Regulation; Charleston Race Week, Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. The rule establishes special local regulations on certain waters of Charleston Harbor in Charleston, South Carolina. The special local regulations will be enforced daily from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. from April 15, 2016 through April 17, 2016. The special local regulations consist of the following three race areas.

    1. Race Area #1. All waters encompassed within an 700 yard radius of position 32°46′10″ N., 79°55′15″ W.

    2. Race Area #2. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius of position 32°46′02″ N., 79°54′15″ W.

    3. Race Area #3. All waters encompassed within a 700 yard radius of position 32°45′55″ N., 79°53′39″ W.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations.

    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in Charleston Race Week or serving as safety vessels. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843)740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced from April 15 through April 17, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily.

    Dated: January 12, 2016. G. L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02280 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 33 CFR Part 401 [Docket No. SLSDC-2016-0004] 2135-AA39 Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories AGENCY:

    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Seaway Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These amendments are necessary to take account of updated procedures and will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Several of the amendments are merely editorial or for clarification of existing requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments are due March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.Regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, New York 13662; 315/764-3200.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are made, an explanation for such a change is provided below.

    Regulatory Notices: Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.Regulations.gov.

    The SLSDC is amending four sections of the Condition of Vessels portion of the joint Seaway regulations. In section 401.10, “Mooring lines”, the two Corporations are proposing to permit vessels not greater than 200 m in overall length to use soft lines instead of wire lines. Over the past 3 years, vessels greater than 150 m in overall length have been permitted to use type approved soft lines on a test basis, with successful results. Based on these same results, the SLSDC is proposing to amend section 401.11, “Minimum Requirements—mooring lines and fairleads” to permit the operator of vessels of more than 150 m but not more than 200 m to use either soft or wire lines.

    In 401.13, “Hand lines”, the SLSDC is proposing to change the maximum diameter of hand lines to 18 mm from 17 mm due to the fact that 17 mm lines are no longer available. The proposed change to 401.17, “Pitch indicators and alarms,” would make a minor administrative change by removing the effective date for the requirement.

    In the Seaway Navigation portion of the regulations, the two Corporations are proposing to make changes in several sections. Section 401.29, “Maximum draft”, is being restructured in order to clarify the requirements for use of an operational Draft Information System. In 401.37, “Mooring at tie-up walls”, the Seaway Corporations are proposing to require that crew members handling lines on tie-up walls wear approved personal flotation devices instead of life jackets that can be unsafe due to their bulky nature. The SLSDC is proposing to change the requirement in 401.45, “Emergency procedures”, to make clear that when a vessel is entering the locks too fast in an emergency situation, the vessel will not be required to deploy mooring lines.

    In the Information and Reports section, a change to section 401.79, “Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection” is being proposed that would require all foreign flagged vessels of 300 GRT or above to submit an electronic Notice of Arrival.

    The other changes to the joint regulations are merely editorial or to clarify existing requirements.

    Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply and evaluation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures is not required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination

    I certify that this proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules primarily relate to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of who are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.

    Environmental Impact

    This proposed regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) because it is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Federalism

    The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and have determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant a Federalism Assessment.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Corporation has analyzed this proposed rule under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48) and determined that it does not impose unfunded mandates on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector requiring a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 401

    Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.

    Accordingly, the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 401, Regulations and Rules, as follows:

    PART 401—SEAWAY REGULATIONS AND RULES Subpart A—Regulations 1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 401 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.

    2. In § 401.10, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 401.10 Mooring lines.

    (b) Unless otherwise permitted by an officer, vessels greater than 200 m shall only use wire mooring lines with a breaking strength that complies with the minimum specifications set out in the table to this section shall be used for securing a vessel in lock chambers.

    3. In the table at the end of § 401.10, revise the last sentence of the first column to read as follows:
    § 401.10 Mooring lines.

    More than 180 m but not more than 225.5 m * * *

    4. In 401.12, revise paragraphs (a)-(d) and add a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 401.12 Minimum requirements-mooring lines and fairleads.

    (a) Unless otherwise permitted by the officer the minimum requirements in respect to mooring lines which shall be available for securing on either side of the vessel, winches and the location of fairleads on vessels are as follows:

    (1) Vessels of 100 m or less in overall length shall have at least three mooring lines—wires or synthetic hawsers, two of which shall be independently power operated and one if synthetic, may be hand held;

    (i) One line shall lead forward from the break of the bow and one line shall lead astern from the quarter and be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses and lead through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation; and

    (ii) One synthetic hawser may be hand held or if wire line is used shall be powered. The line shall lead astern from the break of the bow through a closed chock to suitable bitts on deck for synthetic line or led from a capstan, winch drums or windlass to an approved fairlead for a wire line.

    (2) Vessels of more than 100 m but not more than 150 m in overall length shall have three mooring lines—wires or synthetic hawsers, which shall be independently power operated by winches, capstans or windlasses.

    (i) All lines shall be led through closed chocks or fairleads acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.

    (ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one shall lead astern from the break of the bow and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.

    (3) Vessels of more than 150 m but not more than 200 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines, wires or synthetic hawsers, which shall be independently power operated by winches.

    (i) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the break of the bow.

    (ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.

    (iii) All lines shall be led through a type of fairlead acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.

    (4) Vessels of more than 200 m in overall length shall have four mooring lines—wires, independently power operated by the main drums of adequate power operated winches as follows:

    (i) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the break of the bow.

    (ii) One mooring line shall lead forward and one mooring line shall lead astern from the quarter.

    (iii) All lines shall be led through a type of fairlead acceptable to the Manager and the Corporation.

    (5) Every vessel shall have a minimum of two spare mooring lines available and ready for immediate use.

    5. In § 401.13, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 401.13 Handlines.

    (b) Be of uniform thickness and have a diameter of not less than 12 mm and not more than 18 mm and a minimum length of 30 m. The ends of the lines shall be back spliced or tapered; and

    6. In § 401.17, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 401.17 Pitch indicators and alarms.

    (b) Visible and audible pitch alarms, with a time delay of not greater than 8 seconds, in the wheelhouse and engineer room to indicate wrong pitch.

    7. In § 401.29, revise paragraph (c) as follows:
    § 401.29 Maximum draft.

    (c) Any vessel will be permitted to load at an increased draft of not more than 7 cm above the maximum permissible draft in effect as prescribed under § 401.29(b) if it is equipped with a Draft Information System (DIS) and meets the following:

    (1) An operational Draft Information System (DIS) approved by a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) as compliant with the Implementation Specifications found at www.greatlakes-seaway.com and having on board:

    (i) An operational AIS with accuracy = 1 (DGPS); and

    (ii) Up-to-date electronic navigational charts; and

    (iii) Up-to-date charts containing high resolution bathymetric data; and

    (2) The DIS Tool Display shall be located close to the primary conning position, be visible and legible; and equipped with a pilot plug, if using a portable DIS.

    (i) Verification document of the DIS must be kept on board the vessel at all times and made available for inspection.

    (ii) A company letter attesting to officer training on use of the DIS must be kept on board and made available for inspection.

    (iii) In every navigation season, a vessel intending to use the DIS must notify the Manager of the Corporation in writing at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of its initial transit in the System with the DIS.

    (iv) If for any reason the DIS or AIS becomes inoperable, malfunctions or is not used while the vessel is transiting at a draft greater than the maximum permissible draft prescribed under § 401.29(b) in effect at the time, the vessel must notify the Manager or the Corporation immediately.

    8. In § 401.37, revise paragraph (b) as follows:
    § 401.37 Mooring at tie-up walls.

    (b) Crew members being put ashore on landing booms and handling mooring lines on tie-up walls shall wear approved personal flotation devices.

    9. Revise § 401.44 as follows:
    § 401.44 Mooring in locks.

    (a) Mooring lines shall only be placed on mooring posts as directed by the officer in charge of the mooring operation.

    (b) No winch from which a mooring line runs shall be operated until the officer in charge of a mooring operation has signaled that the line has been placed on a mooring post.

    (c) Once the mooring lines are on the mooring posts, lines shall be kept slack until the “all clear” signal is given by the lock personnel. When casting off signal is received, mooring lines shall be kept slack until the “all clear” signal is given by the lock personnel.

    (d) Vessels being moored by “Hands Free Mooring” system (HFM) shall have a minimum of 2 well rested crew members on deck during the lockage.

    10. Revise § 401.45 as follows:
    § 401.45 Emergency procedure.

    When the speed of a vessel entering a lock chamber has to be checked, the master shall take all necessary precautions to stop the vessel in order to avoid contact with lock structures. At no time shall the vessel deploy its anchors to stop the vessel when entering a lock chamber.

    11. Revise § 401.47 as follows:
    § 401.47 Leaving a lock.

    (a) Mooring lines shall only be cast off as directed by the officer in charge of a mooring operation.

    (b) No vessel shall proceed out of a lock until the exit gates, ship arresters and the bridge, if any, are in a fully open position.

    (c) When “Hands Free Mooring system (HFM) is used, no vessel shall use its engine(s) until the lock operator provides the “all clear” instruction.

    12. In § 401.79 revise paragraph (a) as follows:
    § 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection.

    (a) Advance notice of arrival. All foreign flagged vessels of 300 GRT or above intending to transit the Seaway shall submit a completed electronic Notice of Arrival (NOA) prior to entering at call in point 2 (CIP2) as follows:

    13. In § 401.80 add a new paragraph (c) as follows:
    § 401.80 Reporting dangerous cargo.

    (c) Vessels carrying “Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) as defined in the Transport Canada “Marine Transportation Security Regulations” (MTSR's) and the United States Coast Guard regulations under the Marine Transportation Security Act shall report the “Certain Dangerous Cargo” to the nearest Seaway station prior to a Seaway transit.

    14. In Part 401, Subpart A, Appendix 1, revise the Caution statement to read as follows: Appendix 1 Ship Dimensions

    Caution: Masters must take into account the ballast draft of the vessel when verifying the maximum permissible dimensions. Bridge wings, antennas, masts and, in some cases, the samson posts or store cranes could be outside the limits of the block diagram and could override the lock wall. Masters and pilots must take this into consideration and exercise extreme caution when entering or exiting locks to ensure that the vessel does not contact any of the structures on the lock.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on February 1, 2016. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02168 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152; FRL-9941-95-Region 4] Air Quality Plans; Georgia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. GAEPD certified that the Georgia SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia's infrastructure submission, submitted on October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, addresses certain required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152, by one of the following methods:

    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected]

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152,” Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031.

    Table of Contents I. Background and Overview II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions? IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “Infrastructure” Provisions? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Overview

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 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 EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 22, 2013.1

    1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Georgia's existing SIP consists largely of Georgia's Rule for Air Quality rules adopted by GAEPD and approved by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are some state regulations that are not part of the Georgia federally-approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term “State rules” or “State regulations” indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP. The term “Georgia Air Quality Act” indicates cited Georgia State statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated. The Georgia Air Quality Act is located at http://epd.georgia.gov/existing-rules-and-corresponding-laws.

    This action is proposing to approve portions of Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions 2 for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), for which EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements. For the aspects of Georgia's submittal proposed for approval today, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Georgia's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

    2 Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions dated October 22, 2013, and supplemented on July 25, 2014, are also collectively referred to as “Georgia's SO2 infrastructure SIP” in this action.

    II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 3

    3 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 4

    4 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport

    • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution

    • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies

    • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting

    • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers

    • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions

    • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 5

    5 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this proposed rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection

    • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data

    • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees

    • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities

    III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Georgia that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.6 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    6 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.7 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.8 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    7 See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163—65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    8 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.9 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.10

    9 See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    10 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007, submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.11

    11 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and is thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.12 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance). 13 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.14 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    12 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    13 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    14 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.15 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    15 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.16 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.17 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.18

    16 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    17 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    18 See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Georgia addressed the elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “Infrastructure” provisions?

    The Georgia 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submissions address the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.

    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Georgia's SIP are relevant to air quality control regulations. The following State regulations include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures: 391-3-1-.01, “Definitions. Amended.”, 391-3-1-.02, “Provisions. Amended.”, and 391-3-1-.03, “Permits. Amended.” These regulations collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority for GAEPD to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these State rules are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State.

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.19

    19 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.” See 80 FR 33840.

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. Georgia's authority to monitor ambient air quality is found in the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)). Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan, and includes a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.20 On June 15, 2015, EPA received Georgia's plan for 2015. On October 13, 2015, EPA approved Georgia's monitoring network plan. Georgia's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. This State statute, along with Georgia's Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. No specific statutory or regulatory authority is necessary for GAEPD to authorize data analysis or the submission of such data to EPA, and to provide data submissions in response to Federal regulations. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    20 On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element consists of three sub-elements: enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program).

    Enforcement: GAEPD's Enforcement Program covers mobile and stationary sources, consumer products, and fuels. The enforcement requirements are met through two Georgia Rules for Air Quality: 391-3-1-.07—“Inspections and Investigations. Amended.” and 391-3-1-.09—“Enforcement. Amended.” Georgia also cites to enforcement authority found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-13) in its submittal. Collectively, these regulations and State statute provide for enforcement of SO2 emission limits and control measures.

    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the state's implementation plan with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. The following Georgia Rules for Air Quality collectively establish a preconstruction, new source permitting program in the State that meets the PSD requirements of the CAA for SO2 emissions sources: 391-3-1-.02.—“Provisions. Amended,” which includes PSD requirements under 391-3-1-.02(7), and 391-3-1-.03.—“Permits. Amended,” which includes Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements under 391-3-1-.03(8)(c) and (g). Georgia's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure SIP PSD elements.21

    21 For more information on the structural PSD program requirements that are relevant to EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP requirements, see the technical support document in the docket for this rulemaking.

    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Georgia's SIP approved Air Quality Control Rule 391-3-1-.03(1)—“Construction (SIP) Permit.” governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications, construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary sources.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is adequate for program enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for major sources, and regulation of new and modified minor sources related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions did not address prongs 1 and 2.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area that has the potential to impact PSD in another state) to a NNSR program. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflects the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Georgia addresses prong 3 through rules 391-3-1-.02.—“Provisions. Amended,” and 391-3-1-.03.—“Permits. Amended,” which include the PSD and NNSR requirements, respectively. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP is adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation to Georgia's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions in a separate rulemaking.

    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. The following two Georgia Rules for Air Quality provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element: 391-3-1-.02(7) for the State's PSD regulation and 391-3-1-.03 for the State's permitting regulations. As described above, Georgia Rules for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02.—“Provisions. Amended,” and 391-3-1-.03.—“Permits. Amended,” collectively require any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and local government agencies.

    Additionally, Georgia does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA's analysis of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii) is described below.

    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), GAEPD's infrastructure SIP demonstrates that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. In its SIP submittal, Georgia describes its authority for Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) as the CAA section l05 grant process, the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10), and Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) which establishes Georgia's Air Permit Fee System. For Section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii), the State does not rely on localities in Georgia for specific SIP implementation. Georgia's authority for this infrastructure element relating to local or regional implementation of SIP provisions is found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)). As evidence of the adequacy of GAEPD's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Georgia on March 20, 2015, outlining CAA section 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA submitted to GAEPD can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0152. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2014, therefore, GAEPD's grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out the state's implementation plan and related issues. GAEPD's authority is included in all prehearing and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA. GAEPD is responsible for submitting all revisions to the Georgia SIP to EPA for approval. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia has adequate resources for implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) the majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. With respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) pertaining the state board requirements of CAA section 128, Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission cites Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5) Powers and duties of Board of Natural Resources as to air quality generally) which provides the powers and duties of the Board of Natural Resources as to air quality and provides that at least a majority of members of this board represent the public interest and not derive any significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders and that potential conflicts of interest will be adequately disclosed. This provision has been incorporated into the federally approved SIP.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a), and accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve GAEPD's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).

    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing: (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. GAEPD's SIP submissions identify how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the quality of such data. These data are used to compare against current emission limits and to meet requirements of EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). The following State rules enable Georgia to meet the requirements of this element: Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)—“Sampling.” 22 ; 391-3-1-.02(6)(b)—“Source Monitoring.”; 391-3-1-.02(7)—“Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.”; 391-3-1-.02(8)—“New Source Performance Standards.”; 391-3-1-.02(9)—“Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.”; 391-3-1-.02(11)—“Compliance Assurance Monitoring.”; and 391-3-1-.03—“Permits. Amended.” Also, the Georgia Air Quality Act Article I: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(6)) provides the State with the authority to conduct actions regarding stationary source emissions monitoring and reporting in support of this infrastructure element. These rules collectively require emissions monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the air, including requirements for the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide authority for GAEPD to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require reporting of SO2 emissions.

    22 Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)—“Sampling.” is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.

    Additionally, Georgia is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the AERR on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and their associated precursors—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Georgia made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on December 12, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).

    Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3), “Sampling,” 23 addresses the use of credible evidence.24 EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Georgia SIP.

    23 Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.02(3)—“Sampling.” is not approved into Georgia's federally-approved SIP.

    24 “Credible Evidence,” makes allowances for owners and/or operators to utilize “any credible evidence or information relevant” to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certification, and can be used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated or is in violation of any rule or standard.

    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Act requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Georgia's infrastructure SIP submissions cite air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies in the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Sections 12-9-2 Declaration of public policy, 12-9-6 Powers and duties of director as to air quality generally, 12-9-12 Injunctive relief, 12-9-13 Proceedings for enforcement, and 12-9-14 Powers of director in situations involving imminent and substantial danger to public health), and Rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-2 provides “[i]t is declared to be the public policy of the state of Georgia to preserve, protect, and improve air quality . . . to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(10) provides the Director of GAEPD authority to “issue orders as may be necessary to enforce compliance with [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)] and all rules and regulations of this article.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-12 provides that “[w]henever in the judgment of the director any person has engaged in or is about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute an unlawful action under [the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A)], he may make application to the superior court of the county in which the unlawful act or practice has been or is about to be engaged in, or in which jurisdiction is appropriate, for an order enjoining such act or practice or for an order requiring compliance with this article. Upon a showing by the director that such person has engaged in or is about to engage in any such act or practice, a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without the necessity of showing lack of an adequate remedy of law.” O.C.G.A. Section 12-19-13 specifically pertains to enforcement proceedings when the Director of GAEPD has reason to believe that a violation of any provision of the Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A), or environmental rules, regulations or orders have occurred. O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-14 also provides that the Governor may issue orders as necessary to protect the health of persons who are, or may be, affected by a pollution source or facility after “consult[ation] with local authorities in order to confirm the correctness of the information on which action proposed to be taken is based and to ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be taking.”

    Rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes” provides that the Director of GAEPD “will proclaim that an Air Pollution Alert, Air Pollution Warning, or Air Pollution Emergency exists when the meteorological conditions are such that an air stagnation condition is in existence and/or the accumulation of air contaminants in any place is attaining or has attained levels which could, if such levels are sustained or exceeded, lead to a substantial threat to the health of persons in the specific area affected.” Collectively the cited provisions provide that GAEPD demonstrates authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority in the State. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP, and State laws are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).

    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. GAEPD is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in Georgia. The State has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Georgia has no areas that have been designated as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).

    The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(12) and 12-9-6(b)(13)) provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 12-9-6(b)(l2) of the Georgia Air Quality Act requires GAEPD to submit SIP revisions whenever revised air quality standards are promulgated by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).

    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility protection. EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD, and visibility is described below.

    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations, and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. The following State rules and statutes, as well as the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities: Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-5(b)(17)); Georgia Administrative Procedures Act (O.C.G.A. § 50-13-4); and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) as it relates to Class I areas. Section 12-9-5(b)(l7) of the Georgia Air Quality Act states that the DNR Board is to “establish satisfactory processes of consultation and cooperation with local governments or other designated organizations of elected officials or federal agencies for the purpose of planning, implementing, and determining requirements under this article to the extent required by the federal act.”

    Additionally, Georgia adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development.25 These consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs. Required partners covered by Georgia's consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.

    25 Georgia rule 391-3-1-.15, Georgia Transportation Conformity and Consultation Interagency Rule, is approved into the State's SIP. See 77 FR 35866.

    Public notification (127 public notification): GAEPD has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. GAEPD's Ambient Monitoring Web page (www.georgiaair.org/amp) provides information regarding current and historical air quality across the State. Daily air quality forecasts may be disseminated to the public in Atlanta through the Georgia Department of Transportation's electronic billboards. In its SIP submission, Georgia also notes that the non-profit organization in Georgia, “Clean Air Campaign,” disseminates statewide air quality information and ways to reduce air pollution. Georgia rule 391-3-1-.04 “Air Pollution Episodes” enables the State to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. In addition, the following State statutes provide Georgia the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. OCGA 12-9-6(b)(8) provides authority to the Georgia Board of Natural Resources “To collect and disseminate information and to provide for public notification in matters relating to air quality. . .”. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public notification related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.

    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Georgia's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices are adequate PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J).

    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not need to address the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the EPA can be made. The Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-6(b)(13)) provides GAEPD the authority to conduct modeling actions and to submit air quality modeling data to EPA in support of this element. GAEPD maintains personnel with training and experience to conduct source-oriented dispersion modeling with models such as AERMOD that would likely be used for modeling SO2 emissions from sources. The State also notes that its SIP-approved PSD program, which includes specific (dispersion) modeling provisions, provides further support of GAEPD's ability to address this element. All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, “Guideline on Air Quality Models.”

    Additionally, Georgia supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Georgia's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that GAEPD has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).

    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.

    Georgia's PSD and NNSR permitting programs are funded with title V fees. The Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.03(9) “Permit Fees.” incorporates the EPA-approved title V fee program and fees for synthetic minor sources. Georgia's authority to mandate funding for processing PSD and NNSR permits is found in Georgia Air Quality Act Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-10). The State notes that these title V operating program fees cover the reasonable cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Consultation and participation by affected local entities is authorized by the Georgia Air Quality Act: Article 1: Air Quality (O.C.G.A. 12-9-5(b)(17)) and the Georgia Rule for Air Quality 391-3-1-.15—“Transportation Conformity”, which defines the consultation procedures for areas subject to transportation conformity. Furthermore, GAEPD has demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP and has worked with the Federal Land Managers as a requirement of the regional haze rule. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Georgia's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary.

    V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's October 22, 2013, SIP submission as supplemented on July 25, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

    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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 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 CAA; and

    • does not provide 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 is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 12, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02303 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300 and 600 [Docket No. 150507434-5999-01] RIN 0648-BF09 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Seafood Import Monitoring Program AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), this proposed rule would establish filing and recordkeeping procedures relating to the importation of certain fish and fish products, in order to implement the MSA's prohibition on the import and trade, in interstate or foreign commerce, of fish taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation. The information to be filed is proposed to be collected at the time of entry, and makes use of an electronic single window consistent with the Safety and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 and other applicable statutes. Specifically, NMFS proposes to integrate collection of catch and landing documentation for certain fish and fish products within the government-wide International Trade Data System (ITDS) and require electronic information collection through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Under these procedures, NMFS would require an annually renewable International Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP) and specific data for certain fish and fish products to be filed and retained as a condition of import to enable the United States to exclude the entry into commerce of products of illegal fishing activities. The information to be collected and retained will help authorities verify that the fish or fish products were lawfully acquired by providing information that traces each import shipment from point of harvest to entry-into commerce. The rule will also decrease the incidence of seafood fraud by collecting information at import and requiring retention of documentation so that the information reported (e.g., regarding species and harvest location) can be verified. This proposed rule stipulates the catch and landing data for imports of certain fish and fish products which would be required to be submitted electronically to NMFS through ACE and the requirements for recordkeeping concerning such imports.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by April 5, 2016. Public webinars will take place from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on February 18 and 24, 2016. An in-person public listening session will be held in Boston, Massachusetts from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. eastern standard time on March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on this action, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0122, may be submitted by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0122, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Mark Wildman, International Fisheries Division, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (PDF) formats only.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to the NOAA Fisheries Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection and by email to OIRA [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    Information on how to participate in the February 18 and 24, 2016 public webinars will be posted online at www.iuufishing.noaa.gov. The March 7, 2016 public listening session will take place at the Seafood Expo North America, Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, Room 104A, 415 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. All information about these public information sessions will be posted online at www.iuufishing.noaa.gov.

    Special Accommodations

    The March 7, 2016 public listening session is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mark Wildman, at (301) 427-8350, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wildman, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, NOAA Fisheries (phone (301) 427-8350, or email [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On June 17, 2014, the White House released a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Establishing a Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud.” Among other actions, the Memorandum established a Presidential Task Force on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing and Seafood Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce, with membership including a number of other Federal agency and White House offices: The Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, and Justice; the Federal Trade Commission; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the Council on Environmental Quality; the Office of Management and Budget; the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the National Security Council; and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

    The Task Force was directed to report to the President “recommendations for the implementation of a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud that emphasizes areas of greatest need.” Those recommendations were provided to the President through the National Ocean Council, and NMFS requested comments from the public on how to effectively implement the recommendations of the Task Force (79 FR 75536, December 18, 2014). Oversight for implementing the recommendations of the Task Force has been charged to the National Ocean Council Standing Committee on IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud (NOC Committee).

    Recommendation 14 concerns the development of a risk-based traceability program (including defining operational standards and the types of information to be collected) as a means to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. Recommendation 15 calls for the implementation of the first phase of that risk-based traceability program that tracks fish and fish products identified as being at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud from point of harvest to point of entry into U.S. commerce. The first step taken to address Recommendations 14 and 15 was the identification of those species likely to be at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. See At-Risk Species section below for further detail. The second step taken is this proposed rulemaking, which would establish data reporting and related operational requirements at the point of entry into U.S. commerce for imported fish and fish products of at-risk species. The data reporting requirements would apply to importers of record. The importers of record are the importers as identified in CBP entry filings for shipments containing the designated at-risk species. Customs brokers may fulfill these requirements on behalf of the importer of record at the importer of record's request. This rule implements MSA section 307(1)(Q), which makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation or any treaty or binding conservation measure to which the United States is a party. See 16 U.S.C. 1857(1)(Q).

    As indicated in the Task Force's recommendations to the President, it is the goal of the U.S. government “to eventually expand the program to all seafood at first point of sale or import.” The process for expansion will account for, among other factors, consideration of authorities needed for more robust implementation, stakeholder input, and the cost-effectiveness of program expansion. By December 2016, the NOC Committee will issue a report that includes an evaluation of the program as set out in a final rule and implemented to date, as well as recommendations of how and under what timeframe it would be expanded.

    International Trade Data System (ITDS)

    The SAFE Port Act (Pub. L. 109-347) requires all Federal agencies with a role in import admissibility decisions to participate in a single window system that allows information to be collected electronically through ITDS. Department of the Treasury has the U.S. Government lead on ITDS development and partner government agency integration. CBP developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as single window for the collection and dissemination of information to support ITDS. To comply with SAFE Port Act, NMFS is in the process of establishing ITDS as the electronic means of collecting NMFS-required catch and trade data at the point of entry for imports subject to existing trade monitoring programs. (80 FR 81251, December 29, 2015.) NMFS anticipates completing the final ITDS rule prior to finalizing this rule that would require entry filers, when importing at-risk species, to submit data elements at the point of entry into U.S. commerce and use the CBP ACE portal for submission of import data and/or document images (as applicable for HTS codes covered under multiple programs).

    This proposed rule would also require the importer of record to obtain a permit to import a designated at-risk species (see International Fisheries Trade Permit section below for more detail). At-risk species, and some products derived from such species, would be identified by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes (in combination with other codes where applicable), and entries filed under these codes would be subject to the additional data requirements set forth in this proposed rule. While some HTS codes will have a direct correspondence to the at-risk species, other applicable HTS codes, particularly for processed products, may be broader (i.e., potentially including species other than those designated at-risk.) In such cases, supplementary product identifiers supplied at entry filing (e.g., acceptable market name, scientific name) would be used to determine if the shipment includes at-risk species and is subject to additional data collection. NMFS is proposing to exclude highly processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, puddings, and other similar highly processed fish products) from the additional data requirements in cases for which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the shipment of the product cannot be feasibly identified.

    Additional species and products may be subsequently identified for inclusion in the Seafood Traceability Program as part of the continuing process to implement Recommendations 14 and 15. Use of ITDS and the ACE portal is envisioned as the mechanism for implementing additional data collection requirements for imports of all fish species, if a decision is made to expand the Seafood Traceability Program, through future rulemaking, to include all fish species.

    Entry Into U.S. Commerce

    This proposed rule addresses only the collection of information on imported fish and fish products at the point of entry into U.S. commerce. For imported fish and fish products, entry into commerce is the landing on, bringing into, or introduction into, or attempted landing on, bringing into, or introduction into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the United States. See 16 U.S.C. 1802(22) (A) and (B). “Imported fish and fish products” do not include transit shipments that are not being imported into the United States and therefore do not enter U.S. commerce. However, the permitting, reporting and recordkeeping requirements of this proposed rule would apply only in cases of entries for consumption, withdrawals from a bonded warehouse for consumption or withdrawals from a foreign trade zone for consumption.

    For U.S. domestic wild capture fisheries, entry into U.S. commerce occurs at the first point of landing or sale or transfer to a dealer or processor in the United States. In the case of harvesting vessels that process at-sea, transfer their catch to a processor at-sea, transfer their catch to a carrier or tender vessel at-sea, or transship their catch in port, entry into commerce is the offloading of the transferred and/or processed product for transshipment in an established U.S. port or roadstead. For U.S. domestic aquaculture products, entry into U.S. commerce is the first sale to a processing facility or directly to a consumer market.

    For the designated at-risk species, equivalent information is already being collected at the point of entry into commerce for the products of U.S. domestic fisheries pursuant to various Federal and/or State fishery management and reporting programs. For this reason, this proposed rule does not duplicate data reporting and record retention requirements already in place for products of U.S. domestic fisheries, and instead focuses on accessing the data necessary to establish traceability from point of harvest to entry into U.S. commerce for imported fish and fish products. Together, the requirements already in place for products of U.S. domestic fisheries and the requirements proposed in this rule for imported fish and fish products provide a framework for the designated at-risk species to trace seafood, whether domestic or imported, back to the point of harvest or capture to verify that seafood entering U.S. commerce is both legally caught and not fraudulently represented.

    With respect to aquaculture, U.S. domestic aquaculture is largely regulated at the state level. NOAA understands that U.S. states generally do not collect with respect to products of U.S. aquaculture operations the data this rule proposes to collect on imports. This is a concern as the IUU Task Force Action Plan calls for a traceability program that applies without regard to whether seafood is domestic or imported to ensure that seafood entering U.S. commerce is not the product of IUU fishing or fraud. NMFS is aware of gaps in the collection of traceability information for domestic aquaculture-raised shrimp and abalone, and is working with its federal and state partners to identify and implement measures to address those gaps. While it remains NMFS' full intention to include shrimp and abalone in the final rule, implementation of measures to address those gaps may affect the timing of implementation of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for imports of shrimp and abalone. In particular, if gaps remain unaddressed by the time of publication of a final rule, NMFS intends to delay implementation of the rule for shrimp and abalone until such time as, working with its state and federal partners, it is able to determine that the gaps have been addressed and publishes a notice in the Federal Register specifying implementation of this rule for those species.

    At-Risk Species

    A working group including representatives from NMFS and other Federal agency partners solicited comment on principles to be applied in the identification of fish species likely to be most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud (80 FR 24246, April 30, 2015). Taking into consideration public comment received, the working group evaluated the strength and utility of various indicators of IUU fishing or seafood fraud as well as their measurability and the robustness of data available to assess them. The working group endeavored to minimize overlap of principles to ensure that alignment with multiple principles did not overstate associated risk, and also to distinguish between risk of IUU fishing and risk of seafood fraud.

    The working group identified the following draft principles: Enforcement capability, existence of a catch documentation scheme, complexity of the supply chain, known species substitution, history of mislabeling (other than misidentification of species), and history of fisheries violations. Applying those principles to a base list of species, thirteen fish species/species groups were identified as likely to be most at risk of IUU fishing or seafood fraud. NMFS solicited public comment on the draft principles and draft list of at-risk species (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015). After taking into consideration public comment, NMFS issued final principles and applied those principles to determine a list of at-risk species (80 FR 66867, October 30, 2015). Public comments received in response to each of the above notices can be viewed through the docket created on the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0090.

    Pursuant to the process described above, NMFS issued a list of at-risk species and species groups that includes: Abalone; Atlantic Cod; Pacific Cod; Blue Crab; Red King Crab; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Grouper; Red Snapper; Sea Cucumber; Shrimp; Sharks; Swordfish; and Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, and Yellowfin Tuna. Although bluefin tuna species were determined to be at a lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud than other tuna species and were not included on the list of at-risk species, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed in this rule apply to HTS codes for fish and fish products of all tuna species including bluefin tuna. NMFS notes that bluefin tuna was historically a target of IUU fishing, and in response, two regional fisheries organizations implemented a catch documentation scheme which together include two of the three species world-wide. While NMFS continues to view the bluefin tuna to be at considerably lower risk of IUU fishing and seafood fraud than other tuna species and has made no modification to the list of at-risk species published on October 30, it proposes to cover bluefin tuna in this proposed rule (and has therefore included the HTS codes for bluefin tuna in the above list) in order to establish consistent treatment of tuna species, and avoid possible concerns that one species of tuna may be treated less favorably than others.

    Although NOAA has, as discussed, previously sought comment on the list of species to which this rule will apply (80 FR 45955, August 3, 2015), NOAA recognizes that the public may further comment on the list of species and species groups, including whether any species should be added or deleted. It would be helpful if such comments include information on the factors established in Recommendations 14 and 15 of the IUU Task Force Action Plan. Because NOAA responded on October 30, 2015 (80 FR 66867) to comments received on the proposed list that was published on August 3, 2015 (80 FR 45955), NOAA requests that comments not be submitted on this proposal that are duplicative of those submitted on the list of species and contain no new information.

    Under this proposed rule, importers would therefore be subject to the permitting, reporting and recording keeping requirements, which are described below, with respect to imports of the species and species groups as proposed, subject to revision at the time of issuance of the final rule. Entries of the fish and fish product of species covered by this rule filed under the following HTS codes would be designated in ACE as requiring the additional data in order to obtain release of the inbound shipment:

    HTS code Commodity description 0301940100 TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC, PACIFIC LIVE. 0301950000 TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN LIVE. 0302310000 TUNA ALBACORE FRESH. 0302320000 TUNA YELLOWFIN FRESH. 0302330000 TUNA SKIPJACK FRESH. 0302340000 TUNA BIGEYE FRESH. 0302350100 TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC, PACIFIC FRESH. 0302360000 TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN FRESH. 0302470010 SWORDFISH STEAKS FRESH. 0302470090 SWORDFISH FRESH. 0302510010 GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FRESH. 0302510090 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FRESH. 0302810010 SHARK DOGFISH FRESH. 0302810090 SHARK NSPF FRESH. 0302895058 SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FRESH. 0302895061 GROUPER FRESH. 0302895072 DOLPHINFISH FRESH. 0303410000 TUNA ALBACORE FROZEN. 0303420020 TUNA YELLOWFIN WHOLE FROZEN. 0303420040 TUNA YELLOWFIN EVISCERATED HEAD-ON FROZEN. 0303420060 TUNA YELLOWFIN EVISCERATED HEAD-OFF FROZEN. 0303430000 TUNA SKIPJACK FROZEN. 0303440000 TUNA BIGEYE FROZEN. 0303450110 TUNA BLUEFIN ATLANTIC FROZEN. 0303450150 TUNA BLUEFIN PACIFIC FROZEN. 0303460000 TUNA BLUEFIN SOUTHERN FROZEN. 0303490200 TUNA NSPF FROZEN. 0303570010 SWORDFISH STEAKS FROZEN. 0303570090 SWORDFISH FROZEN. 0303630010 GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FROZEN. 0303630090 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FROZEN. 0303810010 SHARK DOGFISH FROZEN. 0303810090 SHARK NSPF FROZEN. 0303890067 SNAPPER (LUTJANIDAE SPP.) FROZEN. 0303890070 GROUPER FROZEN. 0304440010 GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC FILLET FRESH. 0304440015 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FRESH. 0304450000 SWORDFISH FILLET FRESH. 0304530010 GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC MEAT FRESH. 0304530010 GROUNDFISH COD ATLANTIC MEAT FRESH. 0304530015 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MEAT FRESH. 0304530015 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MEAT FRESH. 0304540000 SWORDFISH MEAT FRESH. 0304711000 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN >4.5KG. 0304711000 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET BLOCKS FROZEN >4.5KG. 0304715000 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 0304715000 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 0304870000 TUNA NSPF FILLET FROZEN. 0304895055 DOLPHINFISH FILLET FROZEN. 0304895055 DOLPHINFISH FILLET FROZEN. 0304911000 SWORDFISH MEAT FROZEN >6.8KG. 0304919000 SWORDFISH MEAT FROZEN NOT >6.8KG. 0304951010 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MINCED FROZEN >6.8KG. 0304951010 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF MINCED FROZEN >6.8KG. 0304991190 TUNA NSPF MEAT FROZEN >6.8KG. 0305320010 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 0305494020 GROUNDFISH COD, CUSK, HADDOCK, HAKE, POLLOCK SMOKED. 0305510000 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF DRIED. 0305620010 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT >50%. 0305620025 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT BET 45-50%. 0305620030 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT BET 43-45%. 0305620045 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT NOT >43%. 0305620050 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE >50%. 0305620060 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT 45-50%. 0305620070 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE CONTENT 43-45%. 0305620080 GROUNDFISH COD NSPF FILLET SALTED MOISTURE NOT >43%. 0305710000 SHARK FINS. 0306142000 CRABMEAT NSPF FROZEN. 0306144010 CRAB KING FROZEN. 0306144090 CRAB NSPF FROZEN. 0306160003 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN <15. 0306160006 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20. 0306160009 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 21/25. 0306160012 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 26/30. 0306160015 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 31/40. 0306160018 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50. 0306160021 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 51/60. 0306160024 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70. 0306160027 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN >70. 0306160040 SHRIMP COLD-WATER PEELED FROZEN. 0306170003 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN <15. 0306170006 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 15/20. 0306170009 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 21/25. 0306170012 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 26/30. 0306170015 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 31/40. 0306170018 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 41/50. 0306170021 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 51/60. 0306170024 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN 61/70. 0306170027 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FROZEN >70. 0306170040 SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FROZEN. 0306260020 SHRIMP COLD-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 0306260040 SHRIMP COLD-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 0306270020 SHRIMP WARM-WATER SHELL-ON FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 0306270040 SHRIMP WARM-WATER PEELED FRESH/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 0308110000 SEA CUCUMBERS LIVE/FRESH. 0308190000 SEA CUCUMBERS FROZEN/DRIED/SALTED/BRINE. 1604141010 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) IN OIL. 1604141091 TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) IN OIL. 1604141099 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) IN OIL. 1604142251 TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 1604142259 TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 1604142291 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 1604142299 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL IN QUOTA. 1604143051 TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (FOIL/FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 1604143059 TUNA ALBACORE IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 1604143091 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (FOIL OR FLEXIBLE) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 1604143099 TUNA NSPF IN ATC (OTHER) NOT IN OIL OVER QUOTA. 1604144000 TUNA NSPF NOT IN ATC NOT IN OIL >6.8KG. 1604145000 TUNA NSPF NOT IN ATC NOT IN OIL NOT >6.8KG. 1605100510 CRAB PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS IN ATC. 1605100590 CRAB PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS NOT IN ATC. 1605102010 CRABMEAT KING IN ATC. 1605102051 CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) IN ATC. 1605104002 CRABMEAT KING FROZEN. 1605104025 CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) FROZEN. 1605104025 CRABMEAT SWIMMING (CALLINECTES) FROZEN. 1605211000 SHRIMPS AND PRAWNS, NOT IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS. 1605291000 SHRIMPS AND PRAWNS, OTHER. 1605570500 ABALONE PRODUCTS PREPARED DINNERS. 1605576000 ABALONE PREPARED/PRESERVED.

    For the above listed HTS codes that may be used to make entry for designated at-risk species and for species which are not so designated, the scientific name of the species in the shipment, or a disclaimer, will be required to discern whether the shipment offered for entry is subject to additional data collection under the proposed traceability program. This proposed rule does not cover highly processed fish products (fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, puddings, and other similar highly processed fish products) for which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the shipment of the product cannot be feasibly identified and therefore HTS codes for such fish and fish products have not been included in the list above. However other program requirements (e.g., TTVP) may have data reporting requirements applicable to these codes.

    Regulatory requirements for reporting and recordkeeping already exist for certain products subject to this rule. In particular, tuna products would be subject to this proposed rule and are now subject to the Tuna Tracking and Verification Program (TTVP) (See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/dolphinsafe/tunaHTScodes.htm), which monitors compliance under the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) (16 U.S.C. 1385). NMFS seeks to avoid any duplication of reporting and recordkeeping by ensuring that those entities currently subject to the TTVP requirements will only have to report the required information to the ACE portal once (and, similarly, those entities subject to both sets of requirements will only keep one set of records for purposes of tracking and verification). Furthermore, in light of the similarity in underlying reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the IUU fishing seafood fraud traceability program and the TTVP program, which verifies whether tuna product marketed as “dolphin safe” meets the eligibility conditions for the dolphin safe label, NMFS intends to ensure that any future changes to the IUU fishing and risk of seafood fraud requirements such as converting certain recordkeeping requirements to a reporting requirement, as discussed below, will be replicated in the TTVP program (through the inclusion of appropriate HTS codes) so that entities serving the U.S. tuna product market will not be subject to conflicting reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Comments regarding HTS codes should address the extent to which the listed codes accurately reflect the potential universe of products associated with the list of at-risk species and the cost effectiveness of including more or fewer codes.

    Data for Reporting and Recordkeeping

    The working group considered the minimum types of information that should be reported in order to determine that imports of at-risk species are not products of illegal fishing or are fraudulently represented. The area of harvest or the location of the aquaculture facility, and the time at which the harvest took place, represents the initial “link” in the supply chain. At-risk species entering U.S. commerce will be traced to their harvest and its authorization. Information on each point of transshipment and processing throughout the fish or fish product's chain of custody culminating at the point of entry into U.S. commerce can also be used to trace product back to point of harvest.

    The data to be reported for at-risk species would be in addition to the information required by CBP as part of normal entry processing via the ACE portal. To avoid duplication, the interagency working group considered data that are already collected by CBP on the entry/entry summary, and data that are, or will be, collected via ACE by NMFS and other ITDS partner government agencies (e.g., Food and Drug Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of State).

    NMFS issued a notice (80 FR 37601, July 1, 2015) to request public input on the minimum types of information necessary for an effective seafood traceability program to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, as well as the operational standards related to collecting, verifying and securing that data. A number of respondents from the trade community expressed concern that any additional documentation and the electronic collection of data would create a burden to the industry, and could compromise the confidential relationships between buyers and suppliers. While changes will need to be made that may pose a challenge in the near term for some industry members, it is anticipated that the long-term benefits of electronic data collection will outweigh these challenges. To address concerns about data confidentiality, data security will be given the highest priority. Information collected via ACE and maintained in CBP systems is highly sensitive commercial, financial and proprietary information, generally exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and prohibited from disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). NMFS further notes that information required to be submitted to the agency under the MSA is subject to MSA confidentiality of information requirements at 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b).

    Several comments expressed the desire for all fish species to be included in the initial phase of the traceability program, not just the subset of identified at-risk species. Others commented that monitoring and control should not stop at the point of entry into U.S. commerce, but carry all the way through to the final retail consumer, where many feel that most fraud occurs, especially in terms of mislabeling. Although this proposed rule is the initial phase, and is designed in such a way that it can be expanded to eventually include all species, as warranted by risk analysis, it is not designed to expand traceability from the point of entry into commerce to the final consumer. As noted earlier, the MSA makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation. Other state and Federal agencies have broader authority regarding mislabeling and other misrepresentation of food products and consumer protection that may be applied at other points in the supply chain up to the final sale.

    The comments reflected almost universal support for the use of scientific names for accurate species identification, with the addition of FDA-approved market names on consumer labeling for user-friendliness. Many of the comments suggested that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fishing Area alone is not sufficient to identify a precise location of harvest, and that fishing location should be more closely defined by including the country of origin (for product harvested within another country's waters), regional designation, or even GPS coordinates.

    The domestic fishing community also expressed the desire for importers to be held to the same documentation standards that apply to U.S. fisheries because they feel that they “already provide a staggering amount of information and demonstrate a high degree of traceability.” The NOC Committee agrees that data regarding fish and fish products from both domestic and foreign sources must be required to enable officials to determine lawful harvest and, also, reduce the incidence of fraud. Much of the data needed to combat IUU fishing is already being collected in many foreign fisheries, and using the single-window ITDS system at the point of entry would help streamline and unify the data reporting and verification process, and provide the needed inter-operability of information exchange across the supply chain.

    After consideration of comments as outlined above, NMFS proposes that, at the point of entry for species covered by this rule, importers of record would be required to report the following information for each entry in addition to other information that CBP and other agencies, including NMFS, currently require:

    • Information on the entity(ies) harvesting or producing the fish (as applicable): Name and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of authorization; Unique vessel identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) of fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.

    • Information on the fish that was harvested and processed, including: Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable market name, and ASFIS number); Product description(s); Name(s) of product; Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).

    • Information on where and when the fish were harvested and landed: Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture harvest; Harvest date(s); Location(s) of aquaculture facility; Point of first landing; Date of first landing; Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) to which fish was landed. Such information may be contained, for example, in catch certificates, landing reports, and port inspection reports. Entries may comprise products from more than one harvest event and each event relevant to entry must be reported.

    • The NMFS IFTP number issued to the importer of record for the entry.

    Additional information on each point in the chain of custody regarding the shipment of the fish or fish product to point of entry into U.S. commerce would be established as a recordkeeping requirement on the part of the importer of record to ensure that information is readily available to NMFS to allow it to trace the fish or fish product from the point of entry into U.S. commerce back to the point of harvest to verify the information that is reported upon entry. Such information would include records regarding each custodian of the fish and fish product, including, as applicable, transshippers, processors, storage facilities, and distributors. The information contained in the records must be provided to NMFS upon request and be sufficient for NMFS to conduct a trace back to verify the veracity of the information that is reported on entry. NMFS expects that typical supply chain records that are kept in the normal course of businesses, including declarations by harvesting/carrier vessels, bills of lading and forms voluntarily used or required under foreign government or international monitoring programs which include such information as the identity of the custodian, the type of processing, and the weight of the product, would provide sufficient information for NMFS to conduct a trace back. In addition to relying on such records, the trade may choose to use model forms that NMFS has developed to track and document chain of custody information through the supply chain. NMFS seeks comments on proposed model forms it has developed for this purpose which are available in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.

    Due to technological limitations of automated data processing for imaged documents and requirements associated with the phase-in of ITDS, this proposed rule requires that chain of custody information be retained by the importer of record and made available to NMFS upon request. However, NMFS recognizes the conservation value of requiring reporting of key chain of custody data elements for the purpose of real-time verification and compliance risk assessment if those data can be accessed and analyzed using automated processes. While constraints on the expansion of information collected through message sets prior to full operationalization of ITDS by December 31, 2016 preclude the inclusion in this proposed rule of a reporting requirement for chain of custody information in that manner, NMFS will identify (including based on its experience with audits conducted pursuant to this rule) key chain of custody data elements that pose conservation benefits for real-time reporting by one year from full implementation of the final rule, and implement through subsequent rulemaking the reporting of key chain of custody data via message set into the ITDS system.

    As explained above, NMFS proposes that the importer of record, or entry filer acting on their behalf, report the data required under the proposed program via the ACE portal as part of the CBP entry/entry summary process. To this end, importers of record who enter the designated at-risk species would be required to supply the data required to be reported under this proposed rule electronically through the ACE Partner Government Agency Message Set for NMFS (NMFS Message Set) and/or the DIS. The format for the NMFS Message Set would be designated for each of the affected commodities (by HTS code) and specified in the following documents that would be jointly developed by NMFS and CBP and made available to importers and other entry filers by CBP (http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair):

    • CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements—Appendix PGA • CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements—PGA Message Set • Automated Broker Interface (ABI) Requirements—Implementation Guide for NMFS

    In developing software for assembling and transferring the additional data to ACE, importers may wish to consider interoperability with existing traceability systems that are prevalent in the private sector supply chain or which may exist for certain commodities subject to catch/trade documentation schemes under the auspices of a regional fishery management organization (RFMO). While NMFS does not endorse any particular private sector traceability system, use of such systems may facilitate the collection of the required information along the supply chain in order to report this information through ACE. However, importers of record are still responsible for the accuracy of the information in their import transactions, irrespective of whether integration software or other automated supply chain solutions are utilized.

    Where RFMO catch/documentation schemes apply to the affected at-risk species, including those that have been implemented by NMFS through regulation (e.g., the swordfish statistical document of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), it is anticipated that compliance with the entry data collection requirements of these schemes would for the most part meet the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the traceability program proposed here. However, ITDS provides sufficient flexibility to collect additional data in cases where the data requirements of the seafood traceability program proposed by this rule would exceed those of an RFMO scheme applicable to the same species. NMFS will work with CBP to avoid duplication of reporting requirement in cases where more than one reporting program applies to a particular fish or fish product, and to ensure that all the data are reported to meet the requirements of each applicable reporting program.

    International Fisheries Trade Permit (IFTP)

    The ITDS proposed rule would establish the IFTP to consolidate existing permits under the highly migratory species international trade program (HMS ITP) and Antarctic marine living resources (AMLR) program, and would require a permit for the TTVP. (80 FR 81251, December 29, 2015). (See Intersection with Other Applicable Requirements section below for further detail on the existing trade monitoring programs.) This proposed rule would extend the IFTP requirement in the ITDS proposed rule to include importers of record identified in CBP entry filings for shipments containing the designated at-risk species covered by this rule. Requiring the IFTP would allow NMFS to identify, and have current contact information for, importers of the at-risk species covered by this rule. This will enable NMFS to provide information about data reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable to at-risk species; alert permit holders in advance of any pending changes to data reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including additional data elements or at-risk species; and minimize the potential for disruptions in trade and costly delays in release of shipments.

    To obtain the IFTP, U.S. importers of record for designated at-risk species covered by this rule and seafood products derived from such species would electronically submit their application and fee for the IFTP via the National Permitting System Web site designated by NMFS. The fee charged for the IFTP would be calculated, at least annually, in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 9 of the NOAA Finance Handbook for determining the administrative costs for special products and services (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/finance/Finance%20Handbook.html); the permit fee would not exceed such costs. An importer of record who is required to have an IFTP only needs one IFTP. Separate permits are not required, for example, if the imported species are covered under more than one program or the importer trades in more than one covered species.

    Reporting and Recordkeeping

    This proposed rule would require that an IFTP holder (i.e., importer of record as identified on CBP entry/entry summary) report certain data for entries of at-risk species covered by this rule. NMFS would provide detailed information to permit holders regarding submission of such data, as well as on recordkeeping, in a compliance guide for industry that will be prepared in advance of NMFS' implementation of a final rule. (The guide may include information on electronic filing through ITDS.) The IFTP holder/importer of record would be required to maintain or have access to, and make available for inspection, electronic or paper versions of records associated with an entry for at-risk species at their place of business for a period of five years after the date of entry.

    NMFS believes the costs of this rule will be relatively minor. Nonetheless, NMFS recognizes that the public may comment on this aspect of the proposed rule and possibly suggest alternative approaches. Section 2.6 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Review and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis discusses several alternatives that were considered and ultimately rejected by NMFS. Any comments on these alternatives or any other modifications to the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements should explain how they maintain the rule's effectiveness at combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud.

    This proposed rule recognizes that the importer of record may be different from the entity that actually completes CBP entry filings (i.e., customs broker). An importer of record must obtain an IFTP and is responsible for complying with all of the requirements of this rule. The importer could arrange for a customs broker to submit required data elements for at-risk species through ACE. The customs broker would have to report the IFTP number of the importer of record along with the other required data elements for the specific entry but would not need to obtain an IFTP. However, the importer of record must still comply with the record keeping and inspection requirements of this rule.

    Verification of Entries

    To implement this proposed regulation, business rules would be programmed into ACE to automatically validate that the importer of record has satisfied all of the NMFS Message Set and document image requirements as applicable to HTS codes subject to multiple programs (e.g., all data fields are populated and conform to format and coding specifications, required image files are attached). Absent validation of the NMFS requirements in ACE, the entry filed would be rejected and the entry filer would be notified of the deficiencies that must be addressed in order for the entry to be certified by ACE prior to release by NMFS and CBP. In addition to automated validation of the data submitted, entries may be subject to verification by NMFS that the supplied data elements are true and can be corroborated via auditing procedures (e.g., vessel was authorized by the flag state, legal catch was landed to an authorized entity, processor receipts correspond to outputs). For shipments selected for verification, if verification of the data cannot be completed by NMFS pre-release, NMFS may request that CBP place a hold on a shipment pending verification by NMFS or allow conditional release, contingent upon timely provision of records by the importer of record to allow data verification. Entries for which timely provision of records is not provided to NMFS or that cannot be verified as lawfully acquired and non-fraudulent by NMFS, will be subject to enforcement or other appropriate action by NMFS in coordination with CBP. Such responses could include a re-delivery order for the shipment, exclusion from entry into commerce of the shipment, or enforcement action against the entry filer or importer of record.

    To select entries for verification, NMFS would work with CBP to develop a specific program within ITDS to screen information for the covered commodities based on risk criteria. For example, risk-based screening and targeting procedures can be programmed to categorize entries by volume and certain attributes (e.g., ocean area of catch, vessel type or gear), and then randomly select entries for verification on a percentage basis within groups of entries defined by the associated attributes. In applying these procedures, NMFS would implement a verification scheme, including levels of inspection sufficient to assure that imports of the at-risk species are not products of illegal fisheries and are not fraudulently represented. Given the volume of imports, and the perishable nature of seafood, it would not likely be cost-effective for most verifications to be conducted on a pre-release basis. However, the verification scheme may involve targeted operations on a pre-release basis that are focused on particular products or ports of concern.

    A verification program as described above will facilitate a determination of whether imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and not misrepresented and deter the infiltration of illegally harvested and misrepresented seafood into the supply chain. In addition to market access deterrence, there may be price effects in that illegal or would be fraudulent seafood must be diverted to lower value markets. Taken together, market access and price effects would reduce the incentives for illegal fishing operations and for seafood fraud. Conversely, authorized fisheries stand to benefit from import monitoring programs that aim to identify and exclude products of IUU fishing and seafood fraud, both through enhanced market share and potentially higher prices.

    Voluntary Third Party Certifications and Trusted Trader Program

    NMFS is considering how voluntary third party seafood certification programs could simplify entry filing for designated at-risk species or could be used to meet reporting requirements under this proposed rule. NMFS requests comment on how interoperability of third party data systems could be applied to meet the data reporting requirements on a pre-arrival basis or at the point of entry. Such interoperable systems would have to provide the information necessary for NMFS to trace product to the harvest event and therefore be sufficient to identify product that is the result of IUU fishing or is misrepresented.

    Additionally, NMFS is considering how a Trusted Trader program might be used to streamline entry processing for designated at-risk species. The Trusted Trader Program is intended to streamline entry processing consistent with ensuring that all traders in the supply chain comply with applicable U.S. regulations. Participants in the Trusted Trader Program would collect or have access to the same data as non-participants, but may not need to provide it prior to entry. NMFS requests comment regarding the potential design and use of a Trusted Trader Program in connection with the requirements proposed in this rule, in particular how it could be used to streamline entry while allowing the United States to determine that imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and not misrepresented and to deter the infiltration of illegally harvested and misrepresented seafood into the supply chain.

    Consideration of the European Union Catch Certification Scheme

    The European Union (EU) adopted the IUU Regulation on September 29, 2008, which included a catch certification scheme for importation and exportation of fishery products. The EU's IUU regulations do not include a traceability scheme equivalent to that as contemplated by the IUU Task Force and as proposed in this rule. However, NMFS is interested in comments on how some of the elements inherent in the EU's IUU regulations may be adapted to this rule as a means of facilitating compliance and reducing burden for exporters, either through the design of the traceability process itself or as part of a trusted trader program.

    Implementation Timeframe

    NMFS requests specific comment on the implementation date for the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements for at-risk species under this proposed rule. While some firms may have adequate information systems already in place, other firms may need lead time to develop and implement mechanisms for transmitting the required information along the supply chain so that the data are available for entry filers to submit via ACE. NMFS anticipates that this proposed rule would become effective in September 2016, consistent with timeframes described in the IUU and Seafood Fraud Task Force Action Plan, but that the date by which importers are required to comply with the requirements in the rule will be sometime after that. NMFS seeks comment on an appropriate implementation date or dates, taking into account any time firms may require to adapt to their practices to comply with the requirements of this rule as well as logistical considerations such as compliance with anticipated revisions to ITDS that will allow chain of custody information to be submitted electronically. As an initial estimate, NMFS anticipates that firms may need between 90 days and 12 months to adapt their practices to comply with the requirements of this rule and proposes an implementation date of somewhere between 90 days and 12 months following publication of the final rule.

    In addition to seeking comments on the implementation timeframe for this first phase of the traceability program, feedback is also sought on the lead time needed for seafood trade participants to implement potential expansion of this rule, either by inclusion of additional species and/or additional data elements. NMFS proposes to implement changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements for species and data elements through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. Future proposed rules would specify the changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements and would direct potentially affected parties to the pertinent CBP documents (Appendix PGA, PGA Message Set, Implementation Guide for NMFS) as described in the Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) available at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ACE%20NMFS%20PGA%20MS%20Guidelines%20-%20July%2022%202015.pdf) that would be developed jointly by NMFS and CBP to provide the implementation details (e.g., species by HTS code, data elements, message set format, DIS requirements).

    International Cooperation and Assistance

    Subject to the availability of resources, NMFS intends to provide assistance to exporting nations to support compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule, including by providing assistance to build capacity to: (1) Undertake effective fisheries management; (2) strengthen fisheries governance structures and enforcement bodies to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud; and (3) establish, maintain, or support systems to enable export shipments of fish and fish products to be traced back to point of harvest.

    Intersection With Other Applicable Requirements

    The proposed requirements for additional data collection at entry into U.S. commerce for imported at-risk species could intersect with data collection requirements applicable to imports of those same species under several other authorities. Some of these authorities are related to combating IUU fishing, while other authorities are aimed at other concerns such as managing bycatch.

    NMFS has previously issued regulations to implement programs for fishery products subject to RFMO documentation requirements and/or catch documentation under domestic laws. These regulations pertain to trade monitoring under three main programs: The HMS ITP, which regulates trade in specified commodities of tuna, swordfish, billfish, and shark fins under the MSA and requirements adopted by several tuna RFMOs to which the United States is a contracting party; the AMLR program, which regulates trade in Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish and other fishery products managed under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR); and TTVP, which regulates trade of purse seine harvested in frozen and/or processed tuna products under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Monitoring authority, conducted under the TTVP, is also provided for tuna products by the DPCIA, which specifies the conditions under which tuna products are eligible to be labeled as dolphin-safe.

    Many of these monitoring programs require parties who import into or export, and/or re-export from the U.S. regulated species to: Obtain a permit from NMFS, obtain documentation on the flag-nation authorization for the harvest from the foreign exporter, and submit this information to NMFS. Depending on the commodity, specific information may also be required, for example: The flag nation of the harvesting vessel, the ocean area of catch, the fishing gear used, the name of the harvesting vessel and details and authorizations related to harvest, landing, transshipment and export/re-export.

    In addition to these three programs, NMFS may implement or recommend trade measures for certain commodities under several other authorities. The High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (HSDFMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1826d-k) sets forth a process for identification and certification of nations for IUU fishing, bycatch of protected living marine resources, and unsustainable shark fishing. Certain fish and fish products from identified nations that do not receive positive certifications could be subject to denial of port privileges and/or import prohibitions under the authority provided in the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act (HSDFEA) (16 U.S.C. 1826a-c). There are also identification and/or certification procedures in other statutes, including the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act (22 U.S.C. 1978) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). These procedures may result in trade restrictions or other measures for fishery products from a certified country that are associated with the activity that resulted in the certification. Further, import prohibitions for certain fishery products could also be applied under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and other statutes, depending on the circumstances of the fish harvest and the conservation concerns of the United States.

    Multilateral efforts to combat IUU fishing may also result in requirements to take trade action. The United States is a member or contracting party to several RFMOs that have established procedures to identify nations and/or vessels whose fishing activities undermine the effectiveness of the conservation and management measures adopted by the organization. Fishery products exported by such nations or harvested by such vessels may be subject to import prohibitions. Relevant RFMO statutes include the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.), the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention Act (AMLRCA) (16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (WCPFCIA) (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and the Tuna Conventions Act (TCA) (16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.). Implementation of such RFMO-derived trade measures may require the collection of information about certain fish products from certain countries, including the United States, and some of these existing measures do involve the at-risk species designated in this proposed rule.

    For existing programs involving collection and reporting of trade information that overlap with the at-risk species proposed for data collection in this current rulemaking, NMFS has examined the data required under those existing programs and has adjusted the NMFS Message Set specified in the ABI Implementation Guide to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met while avoiding duplication. Likewise, NMFS has avoided duplication between the at-risk species data reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this proposed rule and any documentation requirements affecting designated at-risk species that have been implemented pursuant to other existing programs. Should future trade monitoring requirements be applied for designated at-risk species under any statutory authority, NMFS will consider how to avoid duplication of data collection accordingly. However, entry filers should carefully examine the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this proposed rule and other applicable rules, as further explained in the ABI Implementation Guide, for the commodities that comprise the shipment to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met for all trade-related programs that are applicable. The ABI Implementation Guide will be updated by NMFS and CBP to provide the trade with a single comprehensive resource addressing all applicable program requirements for imports of fish and fish products subject to data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under NMFS statutory authority. NMFS would welcome public comment as to whether there are any additional duplicative data reporting or recordkeeping requirements which have not been identified.

    Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed action is consistent with the provisions of this and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. NMFS has prepared a regulatory impact review of this action, which is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). This analysis describes the economic impact this proposed action, if adopted, would have on U.S. businesses and consumers. NMFS invites the public to comment on this proposal and the supporting analysis.

    The regulatory action being considered, and its legal basis, is described in the preamble of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would require a permit (IFTP) for importers of at-risk species. Additionally, information pertaining to the harvest and landing of the product prior to U.S. import would be required at the point of entry into U.S. commerce, and certain records must be retained. With regard to the possible economic effects of this action, NMFS anticipates that U.S. entities would not be significantly affected by this action because it does not directly restrict trade in the designated at-risk species and does not pose entirely new burdens with regard to the collection and submission of information necessary to determine product admissibility. Some of the data proposed to be collected at entry or to be subject to recordkeeping requirements is already collected by the seafood industry in order to comply with food safety and product labeling requirements. In addition, the majority of the countries exporting fish and fish products derived from the designated at-risk species to the U.S. market also export a number of these same fish and fish products to the European Union (E.U.) market. Consequently, many harvesting states, port states, and intermediary/exporting states that would be affected by this rule may already have comparable information collection systems in place to satisfy the requirements of E.U. regulation on IUU fishing.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule will have on small entities and includes a description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action. The purpose of the RFA is to relieve small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental entities of burdensome regulations and recordkeeping requirements. Major goals of the RFA are: (1) To increase agency awareness and understanding of the impact of their regulations on small business, (2) to require agencies to communicate and explain their findings to the public, and (3) to encourage agencies to use flexibility and to provide regulatory relief to small entities. The RFA emphasizes predicting impacts on small entities as a group distinct from other entities and the consideration of alternatives that may minimize the impacts while still achieving the stated objective of the action. Below is a summary of the IRFA for the proposed rule which was prepared in conjunction with a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). The IRFA/RIR is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    The primary objective of this proposed rule is to collect or have access to additional data on imported fish and fish products to determine that it has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulent and to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. These data reporting and recordkeeping requirements affect inter alia importers of seafood products, many of which are small businesses. Given the level of imports contributing to the annual supply of seafood, collecting and evaluating information about fish and fish products sourced overseas are a part of normal business practices for U.S. seafood dealers. The permitting, electronic reporting and recordkeeping requirements proposed by this rulemaking would build on current business practices (e.g., information systems to facilitate product recalls, to maintain product quality, or to reduce risks of food borne illnesses) and are not estimated to pose significant adverse or long-term economic impacts on small entities.

    If this rule is finalized, NMFS estimates there will be approximately 2,000 new applicants for the IFTP, with an estimated industry-wide increase in annual costs to importers of $60,000 in permit fees. Data sets to be submitted electronically to determine product admissibility are, to some extent, either already collected by the trade in the course of supply chain management, already required to be collected and submitted under existing trade monitoring programs (e.g., tuna, swordfish, toothfish), or collected in support of third party certification schemes voluntarily adopted by the trade. Incremental costs are likely to consist of developing interoperable systems to ensure that the data are transmitted along with the product to ensure the information is available to the entry filer.

    The proposed rule would apply to U.S. entities that import fish and fish products derived from the designated at-risk species. This proposed rule would be implemented so as to avoid duplication or conflict with any other Federal rules. To the extent that the proposed requirements overlap with other reporting requirements applicable to the designated at-risk species, this will be been taken into account to avoid collecting data more than once or by means other than the single window (ACE portal). As stated above, this rule is intended to allow NMFS to determine that imported seafood has been lawfully acquired and is not fraudulently represented and to deter illegally caught or misrepresented seafood from entering into U.S. commerce. Given the large volume of fish and fish product imports to the U.S. market, the number of exporting countries, and the fact that traceability systems are being increasingly used within the seafood industry, it is not expected that this rule would significantly affect the overall volume of trade or alter trade flows in the U.S. market for fish and fish products that are legally harvested and accurately represented.

    NMFS considered several alternatives in this rulemaking: The requirements described in the proposed rule, a no-action alternative and various combinations of data reporting and recordkeeping for the supply chain information applicable to the at-risk species. NMFS prefers the proposed rule approach, because it would implement the initial phase of a traceability program as envisioned by Recommendations 14 and 15 of the Task Force. In addition, it is consistent with the existing requirement that all applicable U.S. government agencies are required to implement ITDS under the authority of the SAFE Port Act and Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process (79 FR 10657, February 28, 2014). Also, the proposed traceability program takes into account the burden of data collection from the trade and the government requirements for admissibility determinations.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    Under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO 216-6), the promulgation of regulations that are procedural and administrative in nature are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment. These proposed regulations to implement a seafood traceability program are procedural and administrative in nature in that they would impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements for ongoing authorized catch and trade activities. Fishing activity and trade in seafood products are not further restricted relative to any existing laws or regulations, either foreign or domestic. Given the procedural and administrative nature of this rulemaking, an Environmental Assessment was not prepared.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. The information collection burden for the requirements proposed under this rule (IFTP, harvest and landing data submitted at entry, image files submitted at entry, and provision of records of supply chain information) as applicable to imports of the designated at-risk species are estimated to be an increase of 18,542 hours and $278,130. Recordkeeping/reporting costs (permit application fees at $30 each) will total $60,000. This proposed rule does not anticipate any other information collection burden than what is identified in this section, and therefore is not requesting approval from OMB for the burden associated with any other aspects of the rule.

    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed data reporting is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The public may also wish to comment on how alternative compliance schedules for these reporting and record keeping requirements may affect burden. Draft model forms are also available on both www.regulations.gov and www.reginfo.gov for public review and comment. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to the NOAA Fisheries Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection at the ADDRESSES above, and by email to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300

    Exports, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing, Foreign relations, Imports, International trade permits, Treaties.

    50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300, subpart R, as proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), is proposed to be further amended and 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    50 CFR CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL FISHING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 951 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701 et seq.

    2. Further amend § 300.321, proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), by adding a definition for “Seafood Traceability Program” in alphabetical order, and revising the definitions of “Catch and Statistical Document/Documentation”, “Documentation and data sets required under this subpart” and “Fish or fish products regulated under this subpart” to read as follows:
    § 300.321 Definitions.

    Catch and Statistical Document/Documentation means a document or documentation, in paper or electronic form, accompanying regulated seafood imports and exports that is submitted by importers and exporters to document compliance with TTVP, AMLR, and HMS ITP trade documentation programs as described in § 216.24(f) of this title, and subparts G and M of this part, or the Seafood Traceability Program as described in this subpart.

    Documentation and data sets required under this subpart refers to documentation and data that must be submitted by an importer or exporter to NMFS at the time of, or in advance of, the import, export, or re-export, as well as documentation and data that must be retained by the importer or exporter of record in conjunction with a filing, for seafood products regulated under the TTVP, AMLR, and HMS ITP programs as described in § 216.24(f) of this title, and subparts G and M of this part, or the Seafood Traceability Program as described in this subpart.

    Fish or fish products regulated under this subpart means species and products containing species regulated under this subpart, the AMLR program, the HMS ITP, or the TTVP.

    Seafood Traceability Program means the data reporting and recordkeeping requirements established under § 300.324 of this title.

    3. Further revise § 300.323, proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), to read as follows:
    § 300.323 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

    A person entering for consumption or withdrawal from a foreign trade zone or bonded warehouse for consumption, exporting, or re-exporting fish or fish products regulated under this subpart from any ocean area, or any area of jurisdiction for aquaculture facilities, must file all data sets, reports, and documentation required under the AMLR program, HMS ITP, TTVP and Seafood Traceability Program and under other regulations that incorporate by reference the requirements of this subpart. A paper or electronic copy of all required reports and documentation, and all supporting records upon which an entry filing or export declaration is made, must be maintained by the importer of record, and made available for inspection, at the importer of record's place of business for a period of five years from the date of the import, export or re-export.

    4. Further redesignate § 300.324, proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), as § 300.325 and add new § 300.324 to read as follows:
    § 300.324 Seafood Traceability Program.

    This section establishes a Seafood Traceability Program which comprises data reporting requirements at point of entry for imported fish or fish products and recordkeeping requirements. The data reported and retained will facilitate: A determination that the fish or fish products are not misrepresented or the product of IUU fishing, including that they were not taken in violation of any foreign law or regulation, and exclusion of products from entry into U.S. commerce that are misrepresented or the product of IUU fishing. The data reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the program enable verification of the product offered for entry back to the harvesting event(s).

    (a) The following species or species groups are subject to this Seafood Traceability Program: Abalone; Atlantic Cod; Pacific Cod; Blue Crab; Red King Crab; Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi); Grouper; Red Snapper; Sea Cucumber; Shrimp Sharks; Swordfish; Tunas (Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin, and Bluefin). The harmonized tariff schedule numbers applicable to these species or species groups are listed in the documents referenced in paragraph (c) of this section. Data required to be reported and retained under this program is not required for HTS codes applicable to fish oil, slurry, sauces, sticks, balls, cakes, pudding and other similar highly processed fish products for which the species of fish comprising the product or the harvesting event(s) or aquaculture operation(s) of the shipment of the product cannot currently be feasibly identified.

    (b) In addition to data reporting requirements applicable pursuant to other authorities and requirements set out elsewhere in U.S. law and regulation (e.g., under other NMFS programs or CBP requirements) to the particular commodity offered for entry, the importer of record is required to provide the following data set in ACE at the time of entry for each entry containing the species or species groups listed under paragraph (a) of this section:

    (1) Information on the entity(ies) harvesting or producing the fish: Name and flag state of harvesting vessel(s) and evidence of authorization; Unique vessel identifier(s) (if available); Type(s) of fishing gear; Name(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.

    (2) Information on the fish that was harvested and processed: Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable market name, and ASFIS number); Product description(s); Name of product(s); Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).

    (3) Information on where and when the fish were harvested and landed: Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location; Date(s) of harvest or trip(s); Location of aquaculture facility; Point(s) of first landing; Date(s) of first landing; Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) to which fish was landed. Some entries may comprise products from more than one harvest event and each event relevant to the shipment must be documented.

    (4) The NMFS-issued IFTP number for the importer of record.

    (c) The importer of record, either directly or through an entry filer, is required to submit the data under paragraph (b) of this section through ACE as a message set and/or image files in conformance with the procedures and formats prescribed by NMFS and Customs and Border Protection and made available at: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair.

    (d) Import shipments of fish or fish products subject to this program may be selected for inspection and/or the information or records supporting entry may be selected for audit, on a pre- or post- release basis, in order to verify the information submitted at entry.

    (e) In addition to the entry recordkeeping requirements specified at 19 CFR part 16, the importer of record is required to maintain records containing information on the chain of custody of the fish or fish products sufficient to trace the fish or fish product from point of entry into U.S. commerce to the point of harvest, including information that identifies each custodian of the fish or fish product (such as any transshipper, processor, storage facility or distributor). Such records may include widely used commercial documents such as declarations by the harvesting/carrier vessels or bills of lading. Regardless of whether data is reported at entry or maintained by the importer, the importer must retain records in electronic or paper format under the recordkeeping requirements specified in § 300.323.

    5. Revise redesignated § 300.325, proposed to be added December 29, 2015, (80 FR 81251), as § 300.324, to read as follows:
    § 300.325 Prohibitions.

    In addition to the prohibitions specified in § 300.4, § 300.117, § 300.189, § 600.725 and § 635.71 of this title, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to:

    (a) violate any provision of this subpart, or any permit issued under this subpart.

    (b) Import species listed in § 300.324(a) without a valid IFTP or without submitting complete and accurate information as required under § 300.324(b)-(c).

    50 CFR CHAPTER VI—FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS 6. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    7. In § 600.725, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 600.725 General prohibitions.

    (a) Possess, have custody or control of, ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, land, import, export or re-export, any fish or parts thereof taken or retained in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act or any other statute administered by NOAA or any regulation or permit issued there under, or import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any foreign law or regulation, or any treaty or in contravention of binding conservation measure adopted by an international agreement or organization to which the United States is a party.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02216 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 RIN 0648-BE70 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 35 AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 35 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP; and clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on Amendment 35 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076” by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0076, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Nikhil Mehta, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of Amendment 35 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov. Amendment 35 includes a draft environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Fishery Impact Statement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nikhil Mehta, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each regional fishery management council to submit any FMP or amendment to NMFS for review and approval, partial approval, or disapproval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.

    The FMP being revised by Amendment 35 was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    Actions Contained in Amendment 35

    Amendment 35 includes actions to remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from the FMP, and to clarify the Council's intent regarding the golden tilefish longline endorsement program.

    Remove Four Species From the FMP

    Black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster are currently in the FMP, but have extremely low landings in state and Federal waters, and almost all harvest (recreational and commercial) occurs in waters off South Florida. Currently, NMFS does not manage these species in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); however, these species are subject to regulations in Florida state waters. As described in Amendment 35, there are currently different regulations for recreational bag limits, size limits, and catch levels for these species between the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Florida. Inconsistent regulations make enforcement difficult and may be confusing to the public. Amendment 35 would remove black snapper, mahogany snapper, dog snapper, and schoolmaster from NMFS management in Federal waters of the South Atlantic to ensure that only species requiring Federal management are included in the FMP and to provide consistent regulations for these species across state and Federal jurisdictional boundaries.

    Black snapper is part of the deep-water complex within the FMP. The deep-water complex currently includes black snapper, yellowedge grouper, silk snapper, misty grouper, queen snapper, sand tilefish, and blackfin snapper. If black snapper is removed from the FMP, the annual catch limit (ACL) for the deep-water complex would be reduced from 170,279 lb (77,237 kg), round weight, to 169,896 lb (77,063 kg), round weight, a difference of 382 lb (173 kg), round weight.

    Dog snapper and mahogany snapper are part of the other snappers complex within the FMP. The other snappers complex currently includes cubera snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, dog snapper, and mahogany snapper. If dog snapper and mahogany snapper are removed from the FMP, the other snappers complex ACL would be reduced from 1,517,716 lb (688,424 kg), round weight, to 1,513,883 lb (686,688 kg), round weight, a difference of 3,833 lb (1,739 kg), round weight.

    Dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper are not typically targeted by commercial or recreational fishermen; therefore, bycatch associated with harvest of these species is extremely low. Schoolmaster is currently designated as an ecosystem component (EC) species. The Council is not considering retaining dog snapper, mahogany snapper, and black snapper in the FMP as Ecosystem Component (EC) species, because the objective of the amendment is to establish a consistent regulatory environment across the jurisdictional boundaries of Gulf and South Atlantic Federal waters and Florida state waters. NMFS does not manage these species in Gulf Federal waters; therefore, retaining them as EC species would not create consistent regulations across jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, if these species are designated as EC species, the state of Florida would not be able to extend management authority for them into Federal waters.

    A stock assessment has not been performed for any of these species; however, there is no indication these stocks are depleted. Therefore, removing these stocks from the FMP is not expected to result in any adverse biological effects.

    Clarify Regulations for Golden Tilefish Endorsement Holders

    The final rule for Amendment 18B to the FMP (78 FR 23858, April 23, 2013) established a longline endorsement program for the commercial golden tilefish component of the snapper-grouper fishery. An endorsement is required to fish for golden tilefish with longline gear. Amendment 18B also established a golden tilefish hook-and-line quota and modified the golden tilefish commercial trip limits. The golden tilefish longline endorsement, sector quotas, and trip limits were implemented because the commercial ACL was being harvested rapidly with longline gear, and fishermen who had historically used hook-and-line gear to target golden tilefish were not able to participate in the golden tilefish portion of the snapper-grouper fishery. Establishing gear specific commercial quotas was intended to help ensure that fishermen fishing with each gear type have a fair and equitable allocation of the commercial quota.

    At the time the golden tilefish longline endorsement and gear-specific quotas were established, the Council did not intend for longline endorsement holders to fish on the 500-lb (227-kg) gutted weight hook-and-line quota, or for non-endorsement holders to fish on the longline quota. NMFS and the Council are aware that, since Amendment 18B was implemented, some longline endorsement holders are transferring their golden tilefish longline endorsement to another vessel to then fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear. Other longline endorsement holders are renewing their Federal commercial snapper-grouper vessel permit but waiting to renew their golden tilefish longline endorsement so that they are able to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear while their longline endorsement is not valid. Neither scenario is consistent with the intent of the Council in Amendment 18B. Therefore, the Council determined that they should clarify their intent and request NMFS modify the regulations for golden tilefish endorsement holders. Currently, the regulations state, “vessels with a golden tilefish longline endorsement are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, trip limit.” (50 CFR 622.191(a)(2)(ii)). Amendment 35 and implementing regulations would clarify that “vessels that have valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsements anytime during the fishing year, are not eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under this 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit.” Thus, a fisherman who owns a vessel with a valid or renewable golden tilefish longline endorsement would not be eligible to fish for golden tilefish using hook-and-line gear under the 500-lb (227-kg), gutted weight, hook-and-line trip limit, during that fishing year.

    A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 35 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

    Consideration of Public Comments

    The Council has submitted Amendment 35 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. Comments received by April 5, 2016, whether specifically directed to the amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the amendment. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02271 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 24 Friday, February 5, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 1, 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 March 7, 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.

    Agricultural Research Service

    Title: Electronic Mailing List Subscription Form—Nutrition and Food Safety.

    Omb Control Number: 0518-0036.

    Summary of Collection: The National Agricultural Library's Food and Nutrition Information Center (FNIC) currently maintains several on-line “discussion groups.” This voluntary “Electronic Mailing List Subscription Form” gives individuals working in the area of nutrition and food safety an opportunity to participate in these groups. Data collected using this form will help FNIC determine a person's eligibility to participate in these discussion groups. The authority for the National Agricultural Library (NAL) to collect this information is contained in the CFR, Title 7, Volume 1, Part 2, and Subpart K, Sec. 2.65 (92).

    Need and Use of the Information: FNIC will collect the name, email address, job title, employer, mailing address and telephone number in order to approve subscriptions for nutrition and food safety on-line discussion groups. Failure to collect this information would inhibit FNIC's ability to provide subscription services to these discussion groups.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households; State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents: 1,000.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 17.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02211 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2014-0054] Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of the Products of Biotechnology AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement in connection with potential changes to the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. This notice identifies reasonable alternatives and potential issues to be evaluated in the environmental impact statement and requests public comments to further define the scope of the alternatives and environmental impacts and issues for APHIS to consider.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0054.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comments to Docket No. APHIS-2014-0054, 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-2014-0054 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) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sidney W. Abel, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3943.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Plant Protection Act (PPA) authorizes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to protect plant health in the United States. Under that authority, APHIS currently regulates the introduction (movement into the United States or interstate, or release into the environment) of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that may present a plant pest risk through its regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests.” These regulations are intended to protect against plant pest risks to plant health by providing for the safe importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of certain GE organisms.

    APHIS' regulation of certain GE organisms to protect plant health is aligned with the Federal Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (henceforth referred to as the Coordinated Framework), the comprehensive Federal regulatory policy for ensuring the safety of biotechnology research and products in the United States. The Coordinated Framework describes how Federal agencies will use existing Federal statutes to ensure public health and environmental safety while maintaining regulatory flexibility to avoid impeding the growth of the biotechnology industry. The Coordinated Framework sets forth a risk-based, scientifically sound basis for the oversight of activities that introduce biotechnology products into the environment and describes the roles and responsibilities for the three major Federal agencies involved in regulating biotechnology products: APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, the Federal agencies are in the process of working with the Executive Office of the President to modernize a number of Coordinated Framework issues and activities; that effort is distinct from and entirely compatible with APHIS' effort to revise its biotechnology regulations at 7 CFR part 340. This notice only addresses proposed changes to the APHIS regulations. It is not intended to circumscribe, restrict, or otherwise preclude future actions taken under other Federal statutes and their respective authorities.

    During the past 28 years of APHIS' regulation of certain GE organisms pursuant to the PPA and 7 CFR part 340, advances in biotechnology and new issues raised by a range of stakeholders have emerged. Over this period, APHIS has also gained considerable experience in assessing the plant pest and noxious weed risks of GE organisms. Our evaluations of any potential plant pest risks of APHIS regulated GE organisms have included assessments of weediness of the regulated article or other plants with which it can interbreed. Accordingly, APHIS is considering amending the 7 CFR part 340 regulations pertaining to introductions of certain GE organisms to address the advances in biotechnology and the new issues raised by stakeholders. This update to APHIS' biotechnology regulations will increase the efficiency and precision of our regulations. The proposed revisions would align the range of potential risks that may be considered under APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR part 340 with both the plant pest and noxious weed authorities of the PPA, to ensure a high level of environmental protection pursuant to APHIS' PPA authorities to regulate plant pest and noxious weeds, improve regulatory processes so that they are more transparent to stakeholders and the public, and provide regulatory relief to the extent possible so that unnecessary regulatory burdens are eliminated. Changes to the regulations would ensure that the Agency can continue to effectively regulate the products of biotechnology that may pose plant pest or noxious weed risks to U.S. agriculture and the environment.

    In our current regulations found at 7 CFR part 340, APHIS defines the term “genetically engineered organisms” to mean organisms that have been genetically modified by recombinant DNA techniques.

    The following terms are defined by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772):

    Noxious weed: Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment.

    Plant pest: Any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product:

    A. A protozoan.

    B. A nonhuman animal.

    C. A parasitic plant.

    D. A bacterium.

    E. A fungus.

    F. A virus or viroid.

    G. An infectious agent or other pathogen.

    H. Any article similar to or allied with any of the articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs.

    Under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Federal agencies must examine the potential environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions and alternatives. We are planning to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with the proposed revisions and amendments to APHIS' biotechnology regulations that are being considered. Aspects of the human environment that may be potentially affected by such proposed regulatory revisions and amendments that we have preliminarily identified for evaluation in the EIS will include: Potential impacts on U.S. agriculture and forestry production (e.g., conventional, biotechnology-based, and organic); potential impacts on current and potential future uses of products of biotechnology in agriculture and forestry; agronomic practices employed in biotechnology crop production that may have environmental consequences or impacts (i.e., tillage, crop rotation, and agronomic inputs); potential impacts on aspects of the physical environment that include soil quality, water resources, air quality, and climate change; potential impacts on aspects of the biological environment such as animal and plant communities, weed and insect resistance to herbicides and insecticides (respectively), the potential gene flow and weediness of regulated GE crop plants, and biodiversity; potential impacts on consumer health and agricultural worker safety; animal feed and health; and socioeconomic considerations, to include potential impacts of regulated GE crop plants on the domestic economic environment, international trade, and coexistence among all forms of U.S. agriculture, conventional, biotechnology-based, and organic, in providing market demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel.

    This notice describes the range of proposed reasonable alternatives that are currently under consideration for evaluation in the EIS and the issues that will be evaluated in the EIS, and requests public comment to further define the issues and scope of the EIS' alternatives. We are also requesting public comment to help us identify other environmental issues that should be examined in the EIS.

    The EIS will be prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    In considering the envisioned revisions to 7 CFR part 340, APHIS has preliminarily identified possible new definitions to be used in its proposed part 340 biotechnology regulations for consideration and analysis in the EIS:

    Biotechnology. Laboratory-based techniques to create or modify a genome that result in a viable organism with intended altered phenotypes. Such techniques include, but are not limited to, deleting specific segments of the genome, adding segments to the genome, directed altering of the genome, creating additional genomes, or direct injection and cell fusion beyond the taxonomic family that overcomes natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers. This definition does not include and is intended not to include traditional breeding, marker assisted breeding, or chemical or radiation-based mutagenesis.

    Product of biotechnology. An organism developed using biotechnology.

    Regulated organism. An organism developed using biotechnology that poses plant pest or noxious weed risks as documented in an APHIS risk analysis that APHIS has determined to regulate.

    APHIS is considering, and invites public input on, these proposed definitions. Such input should address APHIS' regulatory objectives to safeguard agricultural plants and agriculturally important natural resources from plant pest or noxious weed damage (biological, chemical, or physical) caused by a “product of biotechnology,” including its potential, or lack of potential to pose plant pest or noxious weed risks.

    These proposed definitions will be used in the four proposed alternatives that are proposed to be examined in the EIS. These proposed alternatives are:

    First Alternative: Take no action. Under this “no action” alternative, APHIS would make no changes to the existing 7 CFR part 340 regulations for certain GE organisms that pose a potential plant pest risk and APHIS would continue to regulate certain GE organisms as it does today. APHIS would not revise its current regulations to add the definitions outlined above. The No Action alternative represents the baseline against which the proposed revisions to the regulations will be compared.

    Second Alternative: Revise the current APHIS regulations concerning the introduction of certain GE organisms to provide for a process to review and regulate certain products of biotechnology to protect plant health; analyze potential plant pest and/or noxious weed risks first; and thereafter regulate only when appropriate and necessary.

    Under this alternative, APHIS would revise its current regulations to implement a two-step process that would ensure a thorough review of a product of biotechnology's potential to pose plant health risks (plant pest and/or noxious weed)—analyze such plant health risks first and only thereafter determine the use of any regulatory action as appropriate and needed. Such a two-step process will enable the agency to consider and place risk-appropriate regulatory controls on the importation, movement, or “outdoor” use of those products that are determined by the agency to pose actual plant pest or noxious weed risks (regulate only when APHIS has determined that certain plant health risks are appropriate and necessary to require some regulatory action to be taken and implemented).

    Analyze First: APHIS would use established and delineated criteria to identify certain products of biotechnology for which the Agency would conduct a review process. The Agency's review process would be used to determine whether the product of biotechnology poses an actual documented plant pest or noxious weed risk and should therefore be regulated. The criteria that would “trigger” the Agency's review process are those which would indicate the potential for the product of biotechnology to pose documented plant pest or noxious weed risks, and may include:

    1. Whether the recipient organism is a biocontrol organism, a microorganism that has been modified for altered plant-microbe interactions, or a plant; and

    2. Whether the product of biotechnology's donor or recipient organism, or the vector used in its development meet the definition of a plant pest, is included in the list of plant pest taxa, or is unknown or unclassified.

    APHIS is considering, and invites public input, on these two proposed regulatory review criteria and also invites public input on proposing other possible regulatory review criteria for APHIS' consideration.

    It is important that the public be aware that the Coordinated Framework has consistently held and proceeded pursuant to the concept and position that the process of genetic modification has not been shown to be inherently dangerous. The Executive Office of the President has, through the Coordinated Framework, underscored the importance of a risk based, scientifically sound, flexible regulatory approach that balances regulatory oversight with the need to avoid impeding biotechnology research and innovation. With that in mind, APHIS is considering and would like public input on potential justifiable exceptions or exemptions that would exclude certain “products of biotechnology” from APHIS' regulatory review and oversight because they lack the realistic potential to pose documented plant pest or noxious weed risks. For example, some possible candidates to be exempted from regulation might be:

    a. Plant products of biotechnology in which the genetic modification was obtained through a process of biotechnology including nucleotide deletions, single base pair substitutions, or other modifications that could reasonably be expected to be obtained through mutagenic techniques that have commonly been used for plant development since the early 1900s.

    b. Insects which are not plant pests transformed using the PiggyBac transposon, but not otherwise containing sequences from plant pests.

    Those products of biotechnology which APHIS determines do meet the proposed criteria 1 and 2 listed above and will not be exempted, would undergo a regulatory review. This regulatory review would employ a plant pest and/or noxious weed risk analysis process to determine whether the product of biotechnology poses either a plant pest or noxious weed risk, and therefore would be a regulated organism as defined above.

    Regulate When Necessary: Once the review process is completed by the Agency, the importation, interstate movement or “outdoor” use of those products of biotechnology that were determined to pose plant pest or noxious weed risks, as documented and confirmed in an APHIS risk analysis, would be subject to APHIS regulatory controls that ensure the protection of plant health. The regulatory control would typically be the issuance of permits with risk-appropriate conditions to mitigate risks.

    Under this second alternative, APHIS proposes to eliminate the notification procedure (currently 7 CFR 340.3), as APHIS anticipates that many GE organisms currently regulated under the notification procedures would not be regulated nor subject to further review under this alternative.

    Under this alternative, APHIS also proposes to eliminate the current petition process for non-regulated status (currently 7 CFR 340.6), as APHIS will conduct new risk analyses consistent with the “analyze first, regulate when necessary” when new information is made available.

    Under this second alternative, APHIS is considering whether or how products of biotechnology that are developed for pharmaceutical or industrial purposes would be regulated under the proposed revised regulations. APHIS appreciates that there are aspects of its regulatory program that are well suited to address these types of products, and would like public input on how public health and safety objectives might be achieved for pharmaceutical or industrial products of biotechnology that would pose plant pest or noxious weed risks.

    Third Alternative: Revise the current APHIS regulations concerning the introduction of certain GE organisms to provide for the regulation of “products of biotechnology” as either plant pests or noxious weeds using the existing plant pest “analysis trigger” or a noxious weed “analysis trigger” that might classify plants produced through biotechnology as potential plant pests or noxious weeds.

    Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulations would substantially increase oversight and resources over those currently used to regulate GE organisms. APHIS would not exempt certain “products of biotechnology” from APHIS regulatory oversight if a “product of biotechnology” was developed using a plant pest; or, if it posed a risk as a noxious weed pursuant to the PPA definition of a noxious weed. Introductions of products of biotechnology that posed a plant pest risk or noxious weed risk would require a permit and conditions would be applied for import, interstate movement, or “outdoor” use.

    Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme would include the range of actions and processes that would enable APHIS to become, to the extent permitted by its PPA authorities, an all-encompassing, wide-scale regulatory permitting authority but still fully comply with the Coordinated Framework and support the continued development of products of biotechnology. APHIS would use its plant pest and/or noxious weed risk analyses to inform the establishment of appropriate permit conditions to protect agricultural plants and agriculturally important natural resources. For example, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme under this alterative would evaluate and consider agricultural and mitigation practices such as crop exclusion zones, risk appropriate isolation distances, or other measures that would address and mitigate “damage” as included in the PPA definition of a noxious weed (e.g., direct or indirect damage to crops or other interests of agriculture). APHIS requests and would appreciate public input on these practices or others that might be appropriate for this third alternative.

    Under this third alternative, APHIS' proposed regulatory scheme would also eliminate the notification (currently 7 CFR 340.3) and petition procedures (currently 7 CFR 340.6) since this alternative's regulatory scheme would propose that all “products of biotechnology” that are plants and are captured by the existing plant pest or noxious weed “analysis triggers,” as defined by the PPA, and currently used and applied by APHIS pursuant to the regulations in 7 CFR parts 340 and 360, would require a permit to enable the agency to establish risk appropriate conditions. APHIS would appreciate public input on its proposal, under this alternative, to eliminate notifications and petitions.

    Fourth Alternative: Withdraw the current 7 CFR part 340 regulations completely and implement a voluntary, non-regulatory consultative process for certain products of biotechnology whereby APHIS would document plant pest or noxious weed risks, if any, of certain products of biotechnology as defined above.

    Under this fourth alternative, developers would be responsible for ensuring that their respective products of biotechnology do not pose risks as a plant pest or noxious weed pursuant to their respective PPA definitions, and that their activities related to the importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment of their respective products of biotechnology are not in violation of any existing statutes or Federal regulations that relate to plant pests or noxious weeds.

    Under this fourth alternative, APHIS would not have a dedicated regulatory scheme to specifically regulate any products of biotechnology that may pose plant pest or noxious weed risks and therefore would not require consultation nor prescribe methods or practices related to any products of biotechnology. Any products of biotechnology that pose plant pests or noxious weed risks would be managed by APHIS using its other existing regulations pursuant to the PPA; e.g., 7 CFR parts 330 and 360. Those existing APHIS regulations relating to plant pests or noxious weeds, would be used as applicable to regulate any products of biotechnology, but would regulate them under their respective current regulatory schemes. Thus this alternative would be using a very different scheme than the current 7 CFR part 340 or the regulatory schemes proposed in the second and third EIS alternatives since APHIS would not plan on revising, amending, or requiring any regulatory changes to 7 CFR parts 330 and/or 360 to address plant pest or noxious weed risks specifically related to products of biotechnology. However, APHIS would maintain expertise in regulating the products of biotechnology pursuant to its PPA plant pest and noxious weed risks and create a non-regulatory program providing voluntary, non-regulatory consultative services to provide developers with Federal support and services intended to facilitate importation, interstate movement or “outdoor” use of products of biotechnology that do not present PPA plant pest or noxious weed risks. Under this fourth alternative and approach, APHIS would provide, upon request for consultation, for an analysis of PPA plant pest or noxious weed risks as part of it routine and continuing operations, and such analyses might facilitate the commercialization of the products of biotechnology by providing an objective analysis of plant pest or noxious weed risks using APHIS risk analysis processes that document a scientific review of the literature and findings related to plant pest or noxious weed risks. APHIS would appreciate public input on its proposal, under this alternative.

    APHIS is requesting comments and information related to the topics and issues presented in this notice so that the scope of the analysis in the draft EIS, including the types and range of reasonable alternatives, is reasonable and appropriate, and proposed revisions to 7 CFR part 340 are well-evaluated. Public input will be helpful in further defining the scope of the issues and reasonable alternatives under consideration. A notice will be published in the Federal Register to announce the availability of a draft EIS when it is issued and to invite the public to provide comments on it.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of February 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02247 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Foreign Agricultural Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 1, 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 March 7, 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.

    Foreign Agricultural Service

    Title: Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD) and Market Access Program (MAP).

    OMB Control Number: 0551-0026.

    Summary of Collection: The basic authority for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD) is contained in Title VII of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, 7 U.S.C. 5721, et seq. Program regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1484. Title VII directs the Secretary of Agriculture to “establish and, in cooperation with eligible trade organization, carry out a foreign market development cooperator program to maintain and develop foreign markets for United States agricultural commodities and products.” The Market Access Program (MAP) is authorized by section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, as amended. Program regulations appear at 7 CFR part 1485. The primary objective of the Market Access Program (MAP) is to encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products through cost-share assistance to eligible trade organizations that implement a foreign market development program. The programs are administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).

    Need and Use of the Information: The collected information will be used by FAS to manage, plan, evaluate, and account for government resources. Specifically, data is used to assess the extent to which: Applicant organizations represent U.S. commodity interests; benefits derived from market development effort will translate back to the broadest possible range of beneficiaries; the market development efforts will lead to increases in consumption and imports of U.S. agricultural commodities; the applicant is able and willing to commit personnel and financial resources to assure adequate development, supervision and execution of project activities; and private organizations are able and willing to support the promotional program with aggressive marketing of the commodity in question. Without the collected information the program could not be implemented.

    Description of Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 64.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 85,304.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02208 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ochoco, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman National Forests; Oregon and Washington; Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, are proposing forest restoration and fuels reduction on portions of approximately 1,270,000 acres of National Forest System lands. The project area consists of selected watersheds amounting to 200,000 acres on the Ochoco, 520,000 acres on the Umatilla, and 550,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Proposed thinning and prescribed fire treatments encompass approximately 580,000 acres across the three National Forests. The project area lies within the Blue Mountain ecoregion in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, encompasses portions of thirteen counties, and includes shared boundaries with private, tribal, state and other federal lands.

    Studies of historical forest conditions can be used to help inform natural ranges of variation in forest structure, composition and density, which are assumed to be resilient to disturbance and change. Fire suppression and past timber management practices in dry forests have increased the abundance of closed-canopied forest stands dominated by smaller diameter, young trees than were present historically. Increased canopy closure has also reduced the amount of forest openings and early seral habitat. Fire suppression has also caused expansion of conifers into aspen stands and historically non-forested areas. Denser forests combined with drought conditions in recent years have contributed to a record number of wildfires, and less resilient forest conditions. There is a need to reduce fuels and move forests to a more resilient structure, composition, density, and pattern.

    The purpose of the project is to enhance landscape and species resilience to future wildfire by restoring forests to their natural (historical) range of variation, reduce the risk of wildfire to high value resources both on and adjacent to National Forest System lands, and provide a diversity of economic opportunities and commodities.

    The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to disclose the potential environmental effects of implementing restoration treatments on National Forest System lands within the project area.

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by 60 days following the date that this notice appears in the Federal Register. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is expected in summer of 2016 and the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is expected in December 2016. The comment period on the DEIS will close 45 days after the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. An FEIS and draft Record of Decision (ROD) will be published after all comments are reviewed and responded to. Objections to the FEIS and draft ROD must be filed 45 days following publication of the legal notice of the “opportunity to object”. Only individuals or organizations that submitted specific written or oral comments during a designated opportunity for public participation (scoping or the public comment period for the DEIS) may object (36 CFR 218.5). Notices of objection must meet the requirements outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations. Implementation, including treatment layout and site specific surveys would begin in 2017. One or more separate RODs will be prepared for each of the three National Forests. The life of this project plan is approximately 10 years after a decision is signed.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to: Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Team Lead, 72510 Coyote Rd., Pendleton, OR 97801. Comments may also be sent via email to: [email protected], or via facsimile to 541-278-3730 c/o Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ayn Shlisky, Blue Mountains Restoration Strategy Team Lead, Umatilla National Forest, 72510 Coyote Rd., Pendleton, OR 97801; phone 541-278-3762. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The USDA Forest Service PNW Region's Eastside Restoration Strategy (ERS) was chartered in January 2013 to accelerate the pace and scale of forest restoration on National Forest System (NFS) lands in eastern Oregon and Washington. The ERS focuses on accelerating forest restoration at a larger scale and faster pace than traditional planning and project implementation processes, The Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project (FRP) is part of the ERS, and was chartered by the Forest Supervisors of the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests to restore the structure, composition, and function of dry forests, and facilitate the effective use, where appropriate, of planned and unplanned landscape scale fire across all forest types on these National Forests. The project area lies within the Blue Mountains ecoregion in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington, and consists of approximately 1,270,000 acres of NFS lands. The overall project planning area consists of selected watersheds amounting to 200,000 acres on the Ochoco, 520,000 acres on the Umatilla, and 550,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. It includes portions of 13 counties and shared boundaries with private, tribal, state and other federal lands. The project area coincides with ceded lands of three treaty tribes (Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Warms Springs Reservation). The Burns-Paiute Tribe, as an Executive Order Tribe, does not have off reservation rights but maintains traditional cultural interests in the Blue Mountain Forest Resiliency Project planning area. This project was intentionally designed to encompass a large scale and narrow scope; test new planning processes; monitor results; learn from project results, and adapt as needed to achieve desired outcomes on the landscape. The project will produce a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which can support decision-making across portions of the three national forests that are not in an Inventoried Roadless Area, designated Wilderness area, Wild and Scenic River, Research Natural Area, or other management area restricted from implementing the proposed activities, or not already covered by similar, existing forest restoration planning efforts.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The 2015 fire season set a new record for the number of acres burned in the United States, totaling over 10 million acres. In 2015, the Blue Mountains National Forests of Oregon and Washington reported over 282,000 acres burned in wildfires. Throughout the FRP area, unusually large and severe wildfires have become more common due to decades of fire suppression, past timber management practices, and climate change. Wildfire transmission to the rural-wildland interface, private forestlands and woodlots, campgrounds, guard stations, communication towers, and other high value resources; and the increasing cost of fire suppression are of major concern to local communities and land managers. Studies of historical forest conditions can be used to help inform natural ranges of variation (RV) in forest structure, composition, density, and pattern, which are assumed to be resilient to disturbance and change. Dry upland forests have become denser and expanded into historically non-forested areas, ladder fuels have increased, and the abundance of large and/or fire-tolerant tree species has declined relative to the RV. Dry upland forest types are also showing a deficit of open canopied stands dominated by large, fire-tolerant trees of ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Some areas show a deficit of large tree dominated, closed-canopied stands. Forests within the project area have also become increasingly vulnerable to uncharacteristic outbreaks of insects and diseases. Plant and animal species adapted to historical forest structures and disturbance regimes are also at risk of loss. The economic livelihood of several communities is threatened by the potential loss of jobs and industries dependent on resilient forest systems and their active restoration.

    The current pace of active forest restoration with thinning and prescribed burning in the Blue Mountains is not keeping pace with forest growth. Over 2.3 million acres in the Blue Mountains are in need of active management toward the RV, with over 1.6 million of these acres occurring on NFS lands. Scenario modelling by the Forest Service in April 2013 revealed that at the current rate of project planning and implementation, the RV on NFS lands in the Blue Mountains would not be achieved for decades, if at all. Active forest management depends on thriving local restoration industries, helps maintain jobs and consistency of forest products from national forestlands, and can reduce fire suppression costs. The existence of active local collaborative groups within the project area provides opportunities to more effectively integrate a range of social values and concerns into project plans. To create a future forest that is more resilient to changing fire regimes and climate, there is a need to take greater action now to restore our landscapes, increase fire's beneficial effects, and reduce the exposure of communities, highly valued resources, and fire sensitive habitats to the unwanted effects of fire and other damaging disturbances.

    Existing conditions for dry forests on the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests differ from the RV in the amounts of small tree versus large tree dominated forests, and open versus closed-canopied forests. The average of RV is about 4% of dry forests for small tree, closed-canopied stands, where trees are mostly less than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is greater than about 40%. Current conditions of these forests are 15%, 40% and 55% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.

    The average of RV is about 10% of dry forests for large tree, closed-canopied stands, where trees are mostly greater than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is greater than about 40%. Current conditions of these forests are 50%, 2%, and 1% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.

    The average of RV is about 55% of dry forests for large tree, open-canopied stands, where trees are mostly greater than about 20″ dbh and canopy cover is less than about 40%. Current conditions fo these forests are about 10%, 2%, and 3% for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively.

    Fire regimes also differ from the RV. The continuity of surface, ladder, and crown fuel is increasing and generally resulting in a change in fire regime from lower severity, higher frequency fire towards higher severity, lower frequency fire. The 50 year average of annual acres burned was about 18,000, 26,000 and 34,000 acres for the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, respectively, before the current fire suppression era. The majority of these fires were of low severity, and relatively high frequency. The available current fire suppression era fire history for these forests indicates that on average about 4,000, 5,000, and 13,000 acres burn annually. The size and frequency of high severity fires are generally greater, and the size and frequency of low severity fires are generally lower across Blue Mountains forests than desired. Transmission of high severity fire from NFS lands to other land ownerships is increasing, in some cases resulting in economic and infrastructure losses.

    The project purpose and need is represented by differences between existing and desired conditions based on Forest Plan management direction. In most cases, desired conditions are similar to the RV, except where the Forest Plan or the existence of conflicting values specify otherwise. In general, there is a need in the project area to:

    Reduce overabundant closed-canopied forest stands in dry forest; maintain existing old forests and increase their abundance over the long term; increase the abundance of fire-tolerant tree species and large tree dominated stands; and restore forest patterns and disturbance regimes that are more reflective of the RV, including reestablishing historic openings and grasslands;

    Enhance landscape resilience to future wildfire, and insect and disease outbreaks, and increase public and firefighter safety in the event of a wildfire;

    Enhance the diversity and quality of habitat conditions across the planning area to improve overall abundance and distribution of wildlife habitat that is more reflective of the RV;

    Restore tribal treaty resources, and high social values associated with traditional uses and culture that are related to the forest restoration need;

    Maintain and enhance resources of high social value, and support local economies by providing a diversity of resource management activities, commodity outputs, ecosystem services, and employment opportunities from public lands;

    Improve existing road networks to provide access for forest treatments while meeting forest plan standards and guidelines as well as Endangered Species Act consultation guidance;

    Build and strengthen relationships among National Forest stakeholders through collaborative processes; and,

    Reduce fuel loading in strategic locations to promote safe and effective use of planned and unplanned fire.

    The FRP will operate within social, policy, regulatory, and legal constraints, and Forest Plan goals and objectives, except where forest plan amendments are needed and proposed. This proposal was developed under the guidance of the 1989 Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); 1990 Umatilla National Forest LRMP; 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest LRMP, and is compatible with the Cohesive Wildfire Strategy.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed action responds to the purpose and need for the FRP. No treatments are proposed in any area that is within an existing, active project planning area, a recently burned or implemented project area, Wilderness, Research Natural Area, Inventoried Roadless Area, or in an area identified by the respective Forest Supervisor as being of low restoration priority. The proposed action was constructed by comparing current conditions to the RV across all ownerships at the scale of watersheds (5th field hydrologic units of 45,000-200,000 acres each). This “all lands” analysis provided the context for determining the treatment need, and the appropriate level of proposed treatment on NFS lands within the project area. The proposed action discloses the general nature of proposed treatments on NFS lands by National Forest, and potential and existing vegetation types using the best available information. More information and maps can be found on the project Web site http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/forestresiliencyproject. After scoping, analysis of public comments, collaborative engagement, and continued improvement of project data, the proposal will be modified and refined to reflect data of higher resolution consistent with the other planning alternatives analyzed in the DEIS.

    All proposed forest treatments would be designed to create forest patterns more reflective of natural disturbance regimes, and facilitate safe and effective fire management to conserve high value resources. Forest treatments may include one or more of the following activities: Thinning/low severity fire—removes small (5-10″ dbh) and medium sized (10-20″ dbh) trees to reduce stand density and canopy cover, and with time and growth, lead to an increase in average stand diameter.

    Opening—through mixed severity fire or mechanical treatments, removes a major proportion of medium and large trees (>20″ dbh) to create openings, or canopy gaps of early seral structure and composition.

    Other disturbance/growth—thinning to manage for young stands, while increasing tree growth and vigor.

    Growth with low severity fire—allows forest succession and growth to occur while maintaining an open forest canopy.

    Grassland restoration—thinning and fire treatments to reduce conifer expansion within grasslands, and reestablish historic grassland/forest edges.

    Aspen enhancement—thinning and fire treatments to reduce conifer expansion within aspen inclusions, and stimulate aspen regeneration to the historical extent of the aspen clone.

    Strategic fuel treatments—includes any of the treatment types above, and other actions that change fuel abundance and arrangement, and decrease resistance to wildfire control at strategic locations to facilitate safe and effective fire management at appropriate spatial scales.

    On the Ochoco National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 115,000 acres within the project planning area:

    20,500 acres of smaller diameter (<20″ dbh), closed-canopied (> about 40% canopy cover) stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed; 18,000 acres of smaller diameter, open canopied (< about 40% canopy cover) stands to move them toward more open conditions encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;

    55,000 acres of larger diameter (> about 20″ dbh), closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;

    15,000 acres in larger diameter, open stands to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;

    4,000 acres for grassland restoration; and

    100 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.

    On the Ochoco National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to 5,800 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.

    On the Umatilla National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 125,000 acres within the project planning area:

    69,500 acres of smaller diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;

    36,000 acres of smaller diameter, open stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;

    1,000 acres of larger diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;

    4,200 acres of larger diameter, open stands to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;

    14,000 acres for grassland restoration; and

    300 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.

    On the Umatilla National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to about 87,500 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.

    On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, thinning and low severity fire would be applied to dry forests on about 190,000 acres within the project planning area:

    127,500 acres of smaller diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions and encourage growth in average diameter. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;

    39,500 acres of smaller diameter, open stands to move them toward more open conditions, encourage growth in average diameter, and/or restore desirable fire regimes. Opening treatments would also be used to create canopy gaps, where needed;

    1,000 acres of larger diameter, closed-canopied stands to move them toward more open conditions, and encourage growth in average diameter;

    7,200 acres in larger diameter, open dry forests to restore desirable fire regimes, and encourage growth in average diameter without reducing the abundance of large tree, open canopied stands overall;

    15,000 acres for grassland restoration; and

    200 acres of aspen inclusions to reduce conifer expansion and stimulate aspen regeneration.

    On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, strategic fuel treatments could be applied on up to 90,000 acres of smaller diameter moist and cold forest to achieve desired planned and unplanned fire behavior, facilitate safe and effective fire management, conserve high value resources, and restore fire at landscape scales more reflective of the RV. These treatments would be integrated with upland dry forest treatments to achieve landscape-level objectives.

    Forest treatments in any Category of riparian habitat conservation area would be limited to prescribed fire and small diameter thinning (<9″ dbh), and adhere to the Blue Mountains Project Design Criteria, which were developed under programmatic informal consultation between the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla (and Malheur) National Forests and the National Marine Fisheries Service (November 2013).

    Any treatment in old forest management areas, as designated in the respective forest plan, would be to support development of old forest characteristics and/or achieve forest plan desired conditions.

    The proposed action would utilize the existing road system currently in place to facilitate implementation of vegetation and strategic fuel treatment activities. No new road construction is proposed, unless it is to meet standard and guidelines or Endangered Species Act consultation guidance for road location (e.g., to relocate a road currently in a riparian habitat conservation area). Where necessary, currently closed roads may be used to implement treatments, but they would be closed immediately after use. The range of alternatives analyzed in the DEIS will include one or more proposed road systems that, post implementation, would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and consultation guidance provided during the development of those plans. Temporary road construction would be based on site suitability, kept to a minimum to minimize detrimental effects such as soil disturbance and potential erosion, designed whenever possible and suitable over existing disturbance footprints (i.e., legacy roads), located to avoid stream crossings, and obliterated upon completion of project implementation.

    Additional benefits of implementation of the proposed action include maintenance and enhancement of culturally significant resources, settings, viewsheds, and sensitive plant and animal species habitat, including those of interest to the Tribes. A monitoring strategy will be developed to support learning and sharing lessons learned through time. Input from interested parties and the most current, applicable science will be used to guide the learning strategy.

    Connected actions that would be analyzed as a part of the EIS include hazard tree removal, snag creation, down wood creation, soil remediation (subsoiling, scarification), invasive plant treatment, native seeding of disturbed sites, system road reconstruction, road maintenance, re-closure of roads opened to implement treatments, water source development, material source development, installation of erosion control features, culvert replacement for haul support, activity fuel preparation and treatment, hand line construction, temporary fencing, stump treatment for annosus root rot, and reforestation. A suite of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Project Design Criteria (PDC) will be integrated into the design of alternatives and the analysis of effects to ensure that relevant natural resources, tribal treaty resources, and social values are managed and protected in a manner consistent with policy, law, and regulation. BMPs and PDCs will also serve to ensure that implementation of the actions described in the ROD are properly executed.

    The purpose and need for action is consistent with the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP), as amended and applicable. Other key guiding policies include, but are not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, and all laws and executive orders and Forest Service policies guiding Tribal consultation.

    Go to http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/forestresiliencyproject for more detailed information and maps of the project area and proposed treatments.

    Forest Plan Amendments

    If necessary to meet the purpose and need of the FRP, the Forest Service may need to amend one or more Forest Plans for activities such as cutting large trees (>21″ in diameter), restoring or conserving old forest characteristics, restoring forest structure in elk habitat, or maintaining current road densities.

    Responsible Official

    The responsible officials for decisions on the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are their respective Forest Supervisors.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    This proposed action is a proposal and not a decision. The Forest Supervisors of the Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests will decide, for their respective Forests, whether to implement the action as proposed, whether to take no action at this time, or whether to implement any alternatives that are analyzed. The Forest Supervisors will also decide whether to amend their respective Land and Resource Management Plan, if necessary to implement the decision.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. Issues that are raised with the proposal may lead to alternative ways to meet the purpose and need of the project. Scoping will also be used to determine site specific concerns that are relevant to forest treatment locations.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment periods and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered.

    Several public engagement sessions will be held in Blue Mountains communities in March 2016 before completion of the scoping period.It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Stacey L. Forson, Forest Supervisor, Ochoco National Forest. Dated: January 29, 2016. Genevieve R. Masters, Forest Supervisor, Umatilla National Forest. Dated: January 29, 2016. Tom Montoya, Forest Supervisor, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02269 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-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 emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration (ITA).

    Title: Interim Procedures for Considering Requests from the Public under the Textile and Apparel Safeguard Provision of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0269.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Burden Hours: 56.

    Number of Respondents: 14.

    Average Hours per Response: 4 hours for a Textile and Apparel Safeguard Request; and 4 hours for a Comment.

    Needs and Uses: Title III, Subtitle C, Section 331 through Section 338 of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the “Act”) implements the textile and apparel safeguard provisions, provided for in Article 4.1 of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”), which entered into force on March 15, 2012. This safeguard mechanism applies when, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under the Agreement, a Korean textile or apparel article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that article, and under such conditions as to cause serious damage or actual threat thereof to a U.S. industry producing a like or directly competitive article. In these circumstances, Article 4.1.1(b) permits the United States to (a) suspend any further reduction in the rate of duty provided for under Annex 2-B of the Agreement in the duty imposed on the article; or (b) increase duties on the imported article from Korea to a level that does not exceed the lesser of the prevailing U.S. normal trade relations (“NTR”)/most-favored-nation (“MFN”) duty rate for the article or the U.S. NTR/MFN duty rate in effect on the day before the Agreement enters into force.

    The Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Act provides that the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) will issue procedures for requesting such safeguard measures, for making its determinations under Section 332(a) of the Act, and for providing relief under Section 332(b) of the Act. CITA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.

    CITA must collect information in order to determine whether a domestic textile or apparel industry is being adversely impacted by imports of these products from Korean, thereby allowing CITA to take corrective action to protect the viability of the domestic textile or apparel industry, subject to section 332(b) of the Act.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 or via email at [email protected]

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at [email protected]

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02231 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-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 emergency provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: International Trade Administration (ITA).

    Title: Interim Procedures for Considering Requests under the Commercial Availability Provision of the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

    OMB Control Number: 0625-0270.

    Type of Request: Emergency submission (new information collection).

    Burden Hours: 89.

    Number of Respondents: 16.

    Average Hours per Response: 8 hours for Request for Commercial Availability Determination; 2 hours for Response to a Request; and 1 hour for Rebuttal.

    Needs and Uses: The United States and Korea negotiated the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (the “Agreement”), which entered into force on March 15, 2012. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4-A of the Agreement, pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement, textile and apparel articles must contain fiber, yarn, and fabric produced in Korea or the United States to receive duty-free tariff treatment. Appendix 4-B-1 of the Agreement will contain a list of specific fiber, yarn, or fabric that either importing Party determined, based on information supplied by interested entities, that the fiber, yarn, or fabric is not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in its territory, or if no interested entity objects to the request. Textile and apparel articles containing these fibers, yarns, or fabrics would also be entitled to duty-free or preferential duty treatment despite not being produced in Korea or the United States.

    The list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 4, Annex 4-B, Paragraphs 1-13 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from the United States or Korea have the right to request that a specific fiber, yarn, or fabric be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fibers, yarns, and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1.

    Section 202(o)(3) of the Act provides that the President may modify the list of fibers, yarns and fabrics in Appendix 4-B-1 by determining whether additional fibers, yarns, or fabrics are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, and that the President will issue procedures governing the submission of requests and providing an opportunity for interested entities to submit comments. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA). OTEXA was unable to publish these procedures earlier and is requesting an emergency review of the information collection and procedures from the Office of Management and Budget.

    CITA must collect information about fiber, yarn or fabric technical specifications and the production capabilities of U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fibers, yarns, or fabrics are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States, subject to Section 202(o)(3) of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, Department Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-0336, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 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 Wendy Liberante, OMB Desk Officer, Fax number (202) 395-5167 or via the Internet at [email protected]

    Sheleen Dumas, Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02229 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-560-824] Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses From Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order (CVD) on certain coated paper (certain coated paper) suitable for high-quality print graphics using sheet-fed presses from Indonesia would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Arrowsmith, Office VII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5255.

    Background

    On November 17, 2010, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the CVD Order on certain coated paper from Indonesia.1 On October 1, 2015, the Department initiated this first sunset review of the CVD Order pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.218(c).2 Verso Corporation, S.D. Warren Company d/b/a Sappi North America, and Appleton Coated LLC, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, and Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, (collectively, Petitioners), timely filed a notice of intent to participate in the review.3

    1See Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 70206 (November 17, 2010) (CVD Order).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year “Sunset” Reviews, 80 FR 59134 (October 1, 2015).

    3See Letter to the Department, “First Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Domestic Industry's Notice of Intent to Participate In Sunset Review,” (October 15, 2015) (Notice of Intent to Participate).

    On October 30, 2015, the Department received a substantive response from Petitioners, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 The Department did not receive a response from the Government of Indonesia or any Indonesian producers or exporters of subject merchandise.

    4See Letter to the Department, “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review Of Countervailing Duty Order On Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia: Domestic Industry's Substantive Response,” (October 30, 2015) (Substantive Response).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to these orders is coated paper. The merchandise subject to these orders are provided for under subheadings: 4810.14.11, 4810.14.1900, 4810.14.2010, 4810.14.2090, 4810.14.5000, 4810.14.6000, 4810.14.70, 4810.19.1100, 4810.19.1900, 4810.19.2010, 4810.19.2090, 4810.22.1000, 4810.22.50, 4810.22.6000, 4810.22.70, 4810.29.1000, 4810.29.5000, 4810.29.6000, 4810.29.70, 4810.32, 4810.39 and 4810.92 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.5

    5See “Scope of the Order” section, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from Indonesia (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of the Comments Received

    All issues in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy rate likely to prevail if the CVD order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidies. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main U.S. Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on certain coated paper from Indonesia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a net countervailable subsidy at the rates listed below:

    Manufacturers/Exporters Net countervailable subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi, Tbk/PT Pindo Deli Pulp and Paper Mills/PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper, Tbk., collectively known as the Asia Pulp and Paper Company/Sinar Mas Group (APP/SMG) 17.94 All-Others 17.94
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: January 29, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02287 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-863, A-475-832, A-570-026, A-580-878, A-583-856] Antidumping Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Notice of Correction to Preliminary Antidumping Determinations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Shanah Lee, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 and (202) 482-6386, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 4, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary determinations of sales for the antidumping investigations of corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan.1 The Preliminary Determinations and Scope Comments Decision Memorandum contained inadvertent errors and omissions with respect to the “Scope of the Investigation” language. Specifically, in addition to typographical errors, the “Scope of the Investigation” in Appendix I to the Preliminary Determinations and Scope Comments Decision Memorandum inadvertently removed a reference to aluminum content, listed an incorrect Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) number (7215.20.1500), and omitted two HTSUS numbers (7215.90.5000 and 7217.20.1500). The correct scope of the investigations is included in the attached Appendix.2

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 63 (January 4, 2016); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 69 (January 4, 2016); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 72 (January 4, 2016); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 75 (January 4, 2016); and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 78 (January 4, 2016) (collectively, “Preliminary Determinations”). See also the Department's memorandum accompanying the Preliminary Determinations, “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated December 21, 2015 (“Scope Comments Decision Memorandum”).

    2 Following the preliminary determinations in the companion countervailing duty investigations of corrosion-resistant steel from the People's Republic of China, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, the Department placed the Scope Comments Decision Memorandum on the records of those investigations making the same changes to the scope of those investigations. Because the Scope Comments Decision Memorandum contained inadvertent errors and omissions with respect to the “Scope of the Investigation” language there, the Department intends to announce this corrected scope language in a memorandum to the file to be placed on the record in each of those countervailing duty investigations.

    This correction to the Preliminary Determinations is issued and published in accordance with section 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by this investigation are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.00 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02288 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-504] Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order (CVD) order on heavy iron construction castings (heavy iron castings) from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Tran, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On October 1, 2015, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on castings from Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 The Department received a notice of intent to participate in the review on behalf of D&L Foundry, EJ USA, Inc. (previously known as East Jordan Iron Works, Inc.), Neenah Foundry Company, and U.S. Foundry & Manufacturing Corp. (collectively, the domestic industry) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).2 Each of these companies claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of the domestic like product.

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Review, 80 FR 190 (October 1, 2015).

    2See Letter to Secretary of Commerce, “Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Iron Construction Castings From Brazil, Canada, and China; and Countervailing Duty Order on Heavy Iron Construction Castings From Brazil,” (October 16, 2015).

    The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 The Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to the proceeding. Because the Department received no response from the respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited review of this CVD order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2).

    3See Letter to Secretary of Commerce, “Iron Construction Castings From Brazil; Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review of Countervailing Duty Order Response,” (November 2, 2015).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the CVD order is castings from Brazil. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item number 7325.10.00. Although the HTSUS number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive. For a full description of the scope, see Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).4

    4See Department Memorandum, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Heavy Iron Construction Castings from Brazil,” dated concurrently with this final notice.

    The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum address the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy, the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked, and the nature of the subsidy.

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to section 752(b)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the CVD order on heavy iron castings from Brazil would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the rate listed below:

    Exporter/manufacturer Net subsidy rate Country-wide rate 1.06 percent ad valorem Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    The Department is issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: January 28, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02286 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE422 Council Coordination Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS will host a meeting of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), consisting of the Regional Fishery Management Council chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors on February 24-25, 2016. The intent of this meeting is to discuss issues of relevance to the Councils, including budget allocations for FY2016 and budget planning for FY2017 and beyond; an overview of the Saltonstall-Kennedy FY15-16 grants process; the FY2016 legislative outlook; updates on electronic monitoring, NMFS bycatch strategy and catch share program review guidance, the NMFS climate science strategy, ecosystem based fisheries management, stock assessment prioritization; and Council workgroup updates, including Citizen Science Workshop and other topics related to implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.

    DATES:

    The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 2016, recess at 5 p.m. or when business is complete; and reconvene at 9 a.m. on Thursday, February 25, 2016, and adjourn by 3:30 p.m. or when business is complete.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Capitol Hill, 550 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202-479-4000, fax 202-288-4627.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Fredieu: telephone 301-427-8505 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act established the CCC by amending section 302 (16 U.S.C. 1852) of the MSA. The committee consists of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils authorized by the MSA or other Council members or staff. NMFS will host this meeting and provide reports to the CCC for its information and discussion. All sessions are open to the public.

    Proposed Agenda Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:30 a.m.—Morning session begins • Welcome/Introductions • NMFS Update • Management and Budget update: FY2016—Status, Council funding; FY2017—Update Budget Outlook; Records Management • Overview of S/K Grant Process • Legislative Outlook • Electronic Monitoring Update • Observer Program and Electronic Monitoring Funding Update • Bycatch Strategy Update • Update on Review of Council Conflict of Interest Regulations 5 p.m.—Adjourn for the day Thursday, February 25, 2016 9 a.m.—Morning Session Begins • Catch Share Program Review Guidance • NMFS Science Update: Climate Science Strategy, EBFM, and Stock Assessment Prioritization • American Fisheries Society Presentation: Aquatic Resource Recommendations for the Next Administration • South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Citizen Science Workshop • Council Workgroup Updates 3:30 p.m.—Adjourn for the day

    The order in which the agenda items are addressed may change. The CCC will meet as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Brian Fredieu at 301-427-8505 at least five working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02239 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 3/6/2016.

    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 6/12/2015 (80 FR 33485-33489), 12/18/2015 (80 FR 79031-79032), and 1/8/2016 (81 FR 916-917), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices 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 organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities 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: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5340-00-NIB-0152—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade 5340-00-NIB-0134—Lockset, Cylindrical, Passage/Closet Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0239—Lockset, Cylindrical, Exit Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0240—Lockset, Cylindrical, Exit Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0254—Lockset, Cylindrical, Passage/Closet Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0136—Lockset, Cylindrical, Privacy Function, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0255—Lockset, Cylindrical, Privacy Function, Boston-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0154—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Hold Open Function 5340-00-NIB-0132—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0133—Lockset, Cylindrical, Office/Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0250—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0252—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0256—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entry Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0257—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entry Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0251—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0253—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0258—Lockset, Cylindrical, Entrance Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0293—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Door Saver Arm, Aluminum 5340-00-NIB-0294—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Door Saver Arm, Cast Iron 5340-00-NIB-0247—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0248—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0249—Lockset, Cylindrical, Dormitory/Corridor Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0135—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0237—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0241—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0242—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0244—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0245—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0259—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom/Security function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0236—Lockset, Cylindrical, Store Room Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0238—Lockset, Cylindrical, Storeroom Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0243—Lockset, Cylindrical, Institutional Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0246—Lockset, Cylindrical, Communication Function, Philadelphia style lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0260—Lockset, Cylindrical, Vestibule/Classroom/Security function, Boston-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0153—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade 5340-00-NIB-0299—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade, Delayed Action 5340-00-NIB-0139—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0282—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0283—Lockset, Mortise, Passage Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0295—Door Closer, Architectural Commercial Grade with Spring Cushion Stop 5340-00-NIB-0141—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0291—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0292—Lockset, Mortise, Privacy Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0261—Lockset, Cylindrical, Classroom Security LED Function, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0262—Lockset, Cylindrical, Classroom Security LED function, Boston-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0298—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Spring Cushion Stop 5340-00-NIB-0155—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Hold Open Function 5340-00-NIB-0296—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Saver Arm 5340-00-NIB-0297—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Saver, Hold Open Arm 5340-00-NIB-0137—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0138—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0263—Lockset, Mortise, Classroom Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0264—Lockset, Mortise, Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0265—Lockset, Mortise, Classroom Holdback Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0278—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0279—Lockset, Mortise, Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0280—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0281—Lockset, Mortise, Office Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0140—Mortise Lockset, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0266—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0267—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0268—Lockset, Mortise, Front Door/Corridor Function, Escutcheon trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0275—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0276—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0277—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance/Storeroom Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0284—Lockset, Mortise, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0285—Lockset, Mortise, Corridor Function, Escutcheon Trim 5340-00-NIB-0286—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0287—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0288—Lockset, Mortise, Entrance Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0289—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0290—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0301—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory/Exit Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0300—Door Closer, Heavy Duty Institutional Grade with Door Arm Saver, Delayed Action 5340-00-NIB-0269—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0270—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0271—Lockset, Mortise, Store Door Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0272—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Philadelphia-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0273—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Ball Knob 5340-00-NIB-0274—Lockset, Mortise, Dormitory Function, Escutcheon Trim, Dallas-style Lever 5340-00-NIB-0142—Electronic Push Button Lockset, Philadelphia-style Lever, Small Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0143—Electronic Push Button Lockset, Philadelphia-style Lever, Large Format Interchangeable Core 5340-00-NIB-0144—Exit Device, Rim, Panic Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0148—Exit Device, Rim, Panic Listed, 4' Door 5340-00-NIB-0145—Exit Device, Rim, Fire Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0149—Exit Device, Rim, Fire Listed, 4' Door 5340-00-NIB-0146—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Panic Listed, 3' Door 5340-00-NIB-0147—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Fire Listed 5340-01-NIB-0150—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Panic Listed, 4' Door 5340-01-NIB-0151—Exit Device, Surface Vertical Rod, Fire Listed, 4' Door Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: VisionCorps, Lancaster, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: B-List Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Pencil, Mechanical, Push Action 7520-01-NIB-2331—Black, Fine Point (0.5 mm) 7520-01-NIB-2332—Black, Medium Point (0.7 mm) Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Mandatory Purchase For: Total Government Requirement Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Distribution: A-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 381—Gift Box, Sweet Treat, Christmas Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Mandatory Purchase For: Military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Deletions

    On 12/31/2015 (80 FR 81810-81811), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer 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 additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities 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 deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7530-01-047-3738—Paper, Writing Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-240-5498—Clipboard, Arch Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-01-035-3342—Pillow, Bed Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Ed Lindsey Industries for the Blind, Inc., Nashville, TN Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6545-00-NSH-2000—Module, Medical System, FRSS Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Louise W. Eggleston Center, Inc., Norfolk, VA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Commander, Quantico, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-NIB-0373—Shovel, Ergo Snow Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity(ies): General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX, Department of Veterans Affairs, NAC, Hines, IL NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-00-082-2081—Cover, Mattress Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-00-935-6619—Cover, Mattress, Natural, 36″ × 82″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-926-5492—Mophead, Wet Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, San Francisco, CA, Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-240-2559—Sponge, Cellulose Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7920-00-NIB-0301—Handle, Wood Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Flatware, Plastic, Totally Degradable 7340-01-486-1858 7340-01-486-1859 7340-01-486-2767 7340-01-486-3657 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Pen, Essential LVX Translucent and refills 7510-01-454-1172 7510-01-454-1175 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries for the Blind, Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6840-00-NIB-0044—Prof Lysol Brand II Aerosol Disinfectant Spray Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6840-01-383-0739—Disinfectant, Detergent—CPAL Item 7930-01-398-0947—Glass Cleaner—CPAL Item 7930-01-398-0948—Glass Cleaner—CPAL Item 7930-01-398-0949—Detergent, General Purpose—CPAL Item 7930-01-463-5064—Floor Care Products Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Bedspread 7210-00-728-0177 7210-00-728-0178 7210-00-728-0179 7210-00-728-0190—Cream, 63″ x 103″ 7210-00-728-0191—Dark Green, 63″ x 103″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Cover, Mattress 7210-00-205-3082—Pre-Shrunk, White, 85″ x 40″ x 6-1/8″ 7210-00-205-3083—Bleached, White, 36″ x 81″ x 6-1/8″ 7210-00-230-1041—Bleached, Pre-Shrunk, White, Twin, 77-1/2″ x 31″ 7210-00-291-8419—White, 36″ x 77″ x 6-1/8″ 7210-00-883-8492—White, 43-1/2″ x 82-1/2″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC, LC Industries, Inc., Durham, NC, The Arkansas Lighthouse for the Blind, Little Rock, AR Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02274 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-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 services from the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 3/6/2016.

    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 Or To Submit Comments 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 services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Services: Service Type: Parts Sorting Service Service is Mandatory for: Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Bldg 3, Suite 20, Tinker AFB, OK Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: NewView Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Packaging Service Service is Mandatory for: Hurlburt Field Air Force Base, 304 Terry Avenue, Hurlburt Field, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4417 1 SOCONS LGC, Hurlburt Field, FL Service Type: Preparation of Oil Sample Kits Service Service is Mandatory for: Pensacola Naval Air Station, Pensacola, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lakeview Center, Inc., Pensacola, FL Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, Naval Air Warfare Center Air Div, Patuxent River, MD Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02273 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at [email protected] Please identify the comments by OMB Control Nos. 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088. Please provide the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference Nos. 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088, found on http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to the Commission through its Web site at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Comments may also be mailed to: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 or by Hand Delivery/Courier at the same address.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting http://RegInfo.gov. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Scopino, Special Counsel, Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5175, email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control Nos. 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants (OMB Control Nos. 3038-0068, 3038-0083, and 3038-0088). This is a request for an extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: On September 11, 2012 the Commission adopted Commission regulations 23.500-23.505 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, Portfolio Compression, and Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants) 1 under sections 4s(f), (g) and (i) 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Commission regulations 23.500-23.505 require, among other things, that swap dealers (“SD”) 3 and major swap participants (“MSP”) 4 develop and retain written swap trading relationship documentation. The regulations also establish requirements for SDs and MSPs regarding swap confirmation, portfolio reconciliation, and portfolio compression. Under the regulations, swap dealers and major swap participants are obligated to maintain records of the policies and procedures required by the rules.5 Confirmation, portfolio reconciliation, and portfolio compression are important post-trade processing mechanisms for reducing risk and improving operational efficiency. The information collection obligations imposed by the regulations are necessary to ensure that each swap dealer and major swap participant maintains the required records of their business activities and an audit trail sufficient to conduct comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction. The information collections contained in the regulations are essential to ensuring that swap dealers and major swap participants document their swaps, reconcile their swap portfolios to resolve discrepancies and disputes, and wholly or partially terminate some or all of their outstanding swaps through regular portfolio compression exercises. The collections of information are mandatory. 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. The Commission did not receive any comments on the 60-day Federal Register notice, 80 FR 73731, dated November 25, 2015.

    1 17 CFR 23.500-23.505.

    2 7 U.S.C. 6s(f), (g) & (i).

    3 For the definition of SD, see section 1a(49) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(ggg). 7 U.S.C. 1a(49) and 17 CFR 1.3(ggg).

    4 For the definitions of MSP, see section 1a(33) of the CEA and Commission regulation 1.3(hhh). 7 U.S.C. 1a(33) and 17 CFR 1.3(hhh).

    5 SDs and MSPs are required to maintain all records of policies and procedures in accordance with Commission regulation 1.31, including policies, procedures and models used for eligible master netting agreements and custody agreements that prohibit custodian of margin from re-hypothecating, repledging, reusing, or otherwise transferring the funds held by the custodian.

    Burden Statement: The Commission is revising its estimate of the burden for this collection to reflect, among other things, the current number of provisionally registered SDs and MSPs.6 The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be as follows:

    6 The 60-day notice indicated that there were 106 Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants. There are 105 Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants currently registered with the Commission.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0068 (Confirmation, Portfolio Reconciliation, and Portfolio Compression Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 105.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 1,282.5.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 134,662.5.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0083 (Orderly Liquidation Termination Provision in Swap Trading Relationship Documentation for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 105.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 270.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 28,350.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    • OMB Control No. 3038-0088 (Swap Trading Relationship Documentation Requirements for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants).

    Number of Registrants: 105.

    Estimated Average Burden Hours per Registrant: 6,284.

    Estimated Aggregate Burden Hours: 659,820.7

    7 The 60-day notice contained an arithmetic error, providing for 135,945 estimated aggregate burden hours, instead of the correct total of 659,820, which is based on the 6,284 burden hours per registrant reflected in the 60-day notice for OMB Control No. 3038-0088.

    Frequency of Recordkeeping: As applicable.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02217 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Record of Decision for the Schofield Generating Station Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, United States Army Garrison—Hawaii AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army announces the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) to lease land and grant easements on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable generating station, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities. The action was the preferred alternative identified in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed Schofield Generating Station Project (SGSP). The ROD identifies the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the SGSP, none of which were determined to be significant adverse effects.

    The selected action will provide improved energy security to the Army and citizens of Oahu, support renewable energy goals, and improve future electrical generation capabilities on Oahu by providing a new secure, firm, dispatchable, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii. Implementation of the preferred alternative will not result in significant impacts. The Army and Hawaiian Electric will implement numerous best management practices to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects.

    ADDRESSES:

    The ROD can be downloaded at http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/schofieldplant. Written requests to obtain a copy of the ROD may be sent to Department of the Army, Directorate of Public Works, U.S. Army Garrison—Hawaii, ATTN: IMHW-PWE (L. Graham), 947 Wright Avenue, Wheeler Army Airfield, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5013 or email them to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please contact Ms. Lisa Graham, NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Garrison—Hawaii. Ms. Graham can be reached by phone at (808) 656-3075, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EIS examined the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts from implementing the proposed action, which is for the Army to lease of 8.13 acres of land and grant a 2.5-acre interconnection easement to Hawaiian Electric Company (Hawaiian Electric) on Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Army Airfield for the construction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of a 50-megawatt (MW) capacity, biofuel-capable generating station, referred to as the Schofield Generating Station, and associated power poles, high-tension power lines, and related equipment and facilities (together, the Schofield Generating Station Project [SGSP]).

    The selected action best meets the Army's needs to provide improved energy security to the U.S. Army Garrison—Hawaii at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia and to provide new secure, firm, flexible, and renewable energy generation to the grid on Oahu, Hawaii. The selected action will also assist the Army in supporting renewable energy-related laws and Executive Orders and meeting its renewable energy goals; assist Hawaiian Electric in meeting the Hawaii Renewable Portfolio Standard goals; and improve future electrical generation on Oahu.

    The electricity produced by the SGSP will ordinarily supply power to all Hawaiian Electric customers through the island-wide electrical grid. During outages that meet the criteria specified in the Operating Agreement between the Army and Hawaiian Electric, SGSP output would first be provided to Army facilities at Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Field Station Kunia up to their peak demand of 32 MW, to meet their missions, and would additionally support the grid up to the station's full capacity. If there were a full island outage, the generating station could be used to restart other generating stations on the island.

    The ROD incorporates analysis contained in the final EIS for the proposed SGSP, which considered all comments provided during formal comment and review periods. The ROD also considered all comments provided during the 30-day waiting period that was initiated when the Notice of Availability for the final EIS was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 68863) on November 6, 2015.

    The Army took this material into account in making its decision, but determined that it did not constitute significant new information relevant to environmental concerns that would require supplementation of the final EIS. Comments received and the Army evaluation of those comments are summarized in the ROD.

    The final EIS evaluated the impacts on land use; airspace use; visual resources; air quality, including climate and greenhouse gasses; noise; traffic and transportation; water resources; geology and soils; biological resources; cultural resources; hazardous and toxic substances; socioeconomics, including environmental justice; and utilities and infrastructure.

    Implementation of this decision is expected to result in less than significant adverse impacts for all resources. Best management practices and design measures that would avoid or minimize adverse effects will be implemented for these resources: visual, air quality, noise, traffic and transportation, water, geology and soils, biological resources, cultural resources, and hazardous and toxic substances.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02041 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2014-0020] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Disposition of Remains—Reimbursable Basis and Request for Payment of Funeral and/or Interment Expense; DD Forms 2065 and 1375; OMB Control Number 0704-0030.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Number of Respondents: 2,450.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 2,450.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1,224.

    Needs and Uses: DD Form 2065 records disposition instructions and costs for preparation and final disposition of remains. DD Form 1375 provides next-of-kin an instrument to apply for reimbursement of funeral/interment expenses. This information is used to adjudicate claims for reimbursement of these expenses.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02272 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; Nguran Corporation AGENCY:

    National Security Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Security Agency hereby gives notice of its intent to grant Nguran Corporation a revocable, non-assignable, exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described and claimed in United States Patent Application No.14/120,606 entitled: “Satisfiability Filter and Query Tool and Method of Building a Satisfiability Filter and Query Tool,” filed on June 9, 2014 and any related non-provisional patent applications and all Letters Patent issuing thereon, and any continuation, continuation-in-part or division of said non-provisional patent application and any reissue or extension of said Letters Patent.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until February 22, 2016 to file 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 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda L. Burger, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3518.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the National Security Agency.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02238 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0007] Manual for Courts-Martial; Proposed Amendments AGENCY:

    Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Annual Review of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12473—Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, and Department of Defense Directive 5500.17, Role and Responsibility of the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military Justice, the JSC is conducting its annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States.

    The committee invites members of the public to suggest changes to the MCM. Please provide supporting rationale for any proposed changes.

    DATES:

    Proposed changes must be received no later than April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Captain Harlye S.M. Carlton, USMC, Executive Secretary, JSC, at (703) 693-9299 or via email at [email protected] The JSC public Web site is located at http://jsc.defense.gov.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02290 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-64] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-64 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN05FE16.001 Transmittal No. 15-64 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Iraq

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $750 million Other $ 50 million Total $800 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles and Services under Consideration for Purchase: Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Five thousand (5,000) AGM-l14K/N/R Hellfire missiles Ten (10) 114K M36E9 Captive Air Training Missiles

    Non-MDE included with this request are Hellfire missile conversion; blast fragmentation sleeves and installation kits; containers; transportation; spare and repair parts; support equipment; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; U .S. Government-provided and contractor-provided technical, engineering, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: U.S. Army (UBW)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    IQ-B-UBF, Basic/LOA Value: $40.6M/LOA Implementation Date: 27 FEB 14 IQ-B-UBF, A1/LOA Value: $57.8M/LOA Implementation Date: 16 JUN 14 IQ-B-UBQ, Basic/LOA Value: $68.3M/LOA Implementation Date: 29 SEP 14 IQ-B-UCI, Basic/LOA Value: $49.3M/LOA Implementation Date: 24 DEC 14 IQ-B-UCX, Basic/LOA Value: $62.6M/LOA Implementation Date: 11 JUN 15 IQ-B-UHC, Basic/LOA Value: $45.7M/LOA Implementation Date: 10 AUG 15 IQ-B-UHK, Basic/LOA Value: $56.5M/LOA Implementation Date: 05 OCT 15 IQ-B-UBL, A1/LOA Value: $53.4M/LOA Implementation Date: 26 JUN 14

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 06 January 2016

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION The Government of Iraq—Hellfire Missiles and Captive Air Training Missiles

    The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of five thousand (5,000) AGM-114K/N/R Hellfire missiles; Ten (10) 114K M36E9 Captive Air Training Missiles; associated equipment; and defense services. The estimated major defense equipment (MDE) value is $750 million. The total estimated value is $800 million.

    The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security goals of the United States by helping to improve a critical capability of the Iraq Security Forces in defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

    Iraq will use the Hellfire missiles to improve the Iraq Security Forces' capability to support ongoing combat operations. Iraq will also use this capability in future contingency operations. Iraq, which already has Hellfire missiles, will face no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Corporation in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Iraq.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-64 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1), of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    The Hellfire Missile is primarily an air-to-surface missile with a multi-mission, multitarget, precision-strike capability. The Hellfire can be launched from multiple air platforms and is the primary precision weapon for the United States.

    The Captive Air Training Missile (CATM) is a training missile (Non-NATO) that consists of a functional guidance section coupled to an inert missile bus. The missile has an operational semi-active laser seeker that can search for and lock-on to laser-designated targets for pilot training, but it does not have a warhead or propulsion section and cannot be launched.

    The highest level of classified information that could be disclosed by a proposed sale or by testing of the end item is SECRET. Information required for maintenance or training is CONFIDENTIAL. Vulnerability data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definitions are classified SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL. Release of detailed information to include discussions, reports and studies of system capabilities, vulnerabilities and limitations that lead to conclusions on specific tactics or other counter countermeasures (CCM) is not authorized for disclosure.

    If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    A determination has been made that the Government of Iraq can provide substantially the same degree of protection as the U.S. Government for the information proposed for release.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02258 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-52] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-52 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN05FE16.002 Transmittal No. 15-52 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Iraq (GoI)

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $ .550 billion Other $1.400 billion Total $1.950 billion

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: provides additional weapons, munitions, equipment, and logistics support for F-16 aircraft.

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Twenty (20) each Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) Twenty-four (24) each AIM-9M Sidewinder missile One hundred and fifty (150) each AGM-65D/G/H/K Maverick missile Fourteen thousand one hundred and twenty (14,120) each 500-lb General Purpose (GP) bomb body/warhead for use either as unguided or guided bombs. Depending on asset availability during case execution, total quantity of 14,120 each 500-lb warheads will comprise a mix of MK-82 500-lb warheads and/or BLU-111 500-lb warheads from stock and/or new contract procurement. Two thousand four hundred (2,400) each 2,000-lb GP bomb body/warheads for use either as unguided or guided bombs. Depending on asset availability during case execution, total quantity of 2,400 each 2,000-lb warheads will comprise a mix of MK-84 2,000-lb warheads and/or BLU-117 2,000-lb warheads from stock and/or new contract procurement. Eight thousand (8,000) each Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) Paveway II tail kits. Will be combined with 500-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-111 to build a GBU-12 guided bomb. Two hundred and fifty (250) each LGB Paveway II tail kits. Will be combined with 2,000-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-117 to build a GBU-10 guided bomb. One hundred and fifty (150) each LGB Paveway III tail kits. Will be combined with 2,000-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-117 to build a GBU-24 guided bomb. Eight thousand, five hundred (8,500) each FMU-152 fuzes. Will be used in conjunction with the LGB tail kits and warheads in the above entries to build GBU All Up Rounds (AUR's). Includes provisioning for spare FMU-152 fuze units (MDE). Four (4) each WGU-43CD2/B Guidance Control Units One (1) each M61 Vulcan Rotary 20mm cannon Six (6) each MK-82 inert bomb Four (4) each MK-84 inert bomb

    Also included are items of significant military equipment (SME), spare and repair parts, publications, technical documents, weapons components, support equipment, personnel training, training equipment, Aviation Training, Contract Engineering Services, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support. Additional services provided are Aviation Contract Logistics Services including maintenance, supply, component repair/return, tools and manpower. This notification also includes Base Operations Support Services including construction, outfitting, supply, security, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, utilities, power generation, food, water, morale/recreation services, aircraft support and total manpower.

    (iv) Military Department: U.S. Air Force (YAA)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS case SAG-$4.2 billion-13 Dec 2010 FMS case SAH-$2.3 billion-12 Dec 2011

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 15 January 2016

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Iraq—F-16 Weapons, Munitions, Equipment, and Logistics Support

    The Government of Iraq requested a possible sale of additional weapons, munitions, equipment, and logistics support for its F-16 aircraft.

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Twenty (20) each Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) Twenty-four (24) each AIM-9M Sidewinder missile One hundred and fifty (150) each AGM-65D/G/H/K Maverick missile Fourteen thousand one hundred and twenty (14,120) each 500-lb General Purpose (GP) bomb body/warhead for use either as unguided or guided bombs. Depending on asset availability during case execution, total quantity of 14,120 each 500-lb warheads will comprise a mix of MK-82 500-lb warheads and/or BLU-111 500-lb warheads from stock and/or new contract procurement. Two thousand four hundred (2,400) each 2,000-lb GP bomb body/warheads for use either as unguided or guided bombs. Depending on asset availability during case execution, total quantity of 2,400 each 2,000-lb warheads will comprise a mix of MK-84 2,000-lb warheads and/or BLU-117 2,000-lb warheads from stock and/or new contract procurement. Eight thousand (8,000) each Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) Paveway II tail kits. Will be combined with 500-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-111 to build GBU-12 guided bombs. Two hundred and fifty (250) each LGB Paveway II tail kits. Will be combined with 2,000-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-117 to build GBU-10 guided bombs. One hundred and fifty (150) each LGB Paveway III tail kits. Will be combined with 2,000-lb warheads in the above entry for MK-82 and/or BLU-117 to build GBU-24 guided bombs. Eight thousand, five hundred (8,500) each FMU-152 fuzes. Will be used in conjunction with the LGB tail kits and warheads in the above entries to build GBU All Up Rounds (AUR's). Includes provisioning for spare FMU-152 fuze units (MDE). Four (4) each WGU-43CD2/B Guidance Control Units One (1) each M61 Vulcan Rotary 20mm cannon Six (6) each MK-82 inert bomb Four (4) each MK-84 inert bomb

    Also included are items of significant military equipment (SME), spare and repair parts, publications, technical documents, weapons components, support equipment, personnel training, training equipment, Aviation Training, Contract Engineering Services, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, as well as other related elements of logistics and program support. Additional services provided are Aviation Contract Logistics Services including maintenance, supply, component repair/return, tools and manpower. This notification also includes Base Operations Support Services including construction, outfitting, supply, security, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, utilities, power generation, food, water, morale/recreation services, aircraft support and total manpower. The total estimated value of MDE is $ .550 billion. The total overall estimated value is $1.950 billion.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. This proposed sale directly supports Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States.

    Iraq previously purchased thirty-six (36) F-16 aircraft. Iraq requires these additional weapons, munitions, and technical services to maintain the operational capabilities of its aircraft. This proposed sale enables Iraq to fully maintain and employ its aircraft and sustain pilot training to effectively protect Iraq from current and future threats.

    The proposed sale of these additional weapons, munitions, equipment, and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal vendors are:

    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company Fort Worth, Texas Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support Fort Worth, Texas Raytheon Company Lexington, Massachusetts The Marvin Group Inglewood, California United Technologies Aerospace Systems Chelmsford, Massachusetts Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training Fort Worth, Texas Royal Jordanian Air Academy Amman, Jordan Pratt and Whitney East Hartford, Connecticut Michael Baker International Alexandria, VA

    There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale requires approximately four hundred (400) U.S. Government and contractor personnel to reside in Iraq through calendar year 2020 as part of this sale to establish maintenance support, on-the-job maintenance training, and maintenance advice.

    There is no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-52 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. This sale sustains sensitive technology previously sold to Iraq. The F-16C/D Block 50/52 weapon system is UNCLASSIFIED, except as noted below. The aircraft uses the F-16 airframe and features advanced avionics and systems. It contains the Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 or the General Electric F-110-GE-129 engine, AN/APG-68V(9) radar, digital flight control system, internal and external electronic warfare equipment, Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) (without Mode IV), operational flight program, and software computer programs.

    2. The AIM-9M-8/9 Sidewinder is a supersonic, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile carried by fighter aircraft. The hardware, software, and maintenance are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Pilot training, technical data, and documentation necessary for performance and operating information are classified SECRET.

    3. The Paveway II/III (GBU-10/12/24) weapon is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Information revealing target designation tactics and associated aircraft maneuvers, the probability of destroying specific/peculiar targets, vulnerabilities regarding countermeasures and the electromagnetic environment is classified SECRET.

    4. The AGM-65D/G/H/K Maverick air-to-ground missile is SECRET. The SECRET aspects of the Maverick system are tactics, information revealing its vulnerability to countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. Manuals and maintenance have portions that are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Performance and operating logic of the countermeasures circuits are SECRET.

    5. The Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) is a modified HGU-55/P helmet that incorporates a visor-projected Heads-Up Display to cue weapons and aircraft sensors to air and ground targets. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. The technical data and documents are classified up to SECRET.

    6. The PGU-28 20mm High Explosive Incendiary ammunition is a low-drag round designed to reduce in-flight drag and deceleration. It is a semi-armor piercing high explosive incendiary round. The PGU-27 A/B 20mm ammunition is the target practice version of the PGU-28. Both the PGU-27 and the PGU-28 are UNCLASSIFIED.

    7. The M61 20mm Vulcan Rotary Cannon is a six-barreled automatic cannon chambered in 20x102mm. This weapon is fixed mounted on fighter aircraft and is used for damaging and destroying aerial and ground targets. The cannon and the associated ammunition are UNCLASSIFIED.

    8. The MK-82 and MK84 are 500-lb and 2000-lb general purpose bombs respectively. These blast and fragmentation bombs are designed to attack soft and intermediately protected targets. The weapons are UNCLASSIFIED.

    9. The BLU-111 is a 500-lb bomb and the BLU-117 is a 2,000- lb bomb. Both bombs are similar to the MK-84 and are filled with the Insensitive Munitions explosive to resist exploding in fuel related fires. They are used by the U.S. Navy. The weapons are UNCLASSIFIED.

    10. MJU-7 Flares are a magnesium-based Infrared (IR) countermeasure used for decoying air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles. The MJU-7 hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Countermeasure effectiveness information is classified up to SECRET.

    11. RR-170 Chaff is a countermeasure used to decoy radars and radar-guided missiles. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED. Countermeasure effectiveness information is classified up to SECRET.

    12. Software, hardware, and other data/information, which is classified or sensitive, is reviewed prior to release to protect system vulnerabilities, design data, and performance parameters. Some end-item hardware, software, and other data identified above are classified at the CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET level. Potential compromise of these systems is controlled through management of the basic software programs of highly sensitive systems and software-controlled weapon systems on a case-by-case basis.

    13. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems which might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    14. This sale is necessary to further the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits derived from this sale, as outlined in the Policy Justification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    15. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Iraq.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02264 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-65] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah A. Ragan or Heather N. Harwell, DSCA/LMO, (703) 604-1546/(703) 607-5339.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 15-65 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN05FE16.000 Transmittal No. 15-65 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Oman

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $51 million Other $ 0 million Total $51 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Four hundred (400) Tube-launched Optically-tracked wire guided (TOW) 2B Aero, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71F-3-RF) Seven (7) TOW 2B Aero, RF Missile (BGM-71F-3-RF) Fly-to-Buy Missiles

    (iv) Military Department: U.S. Army (UKP)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case UKC-$16.8B-05 Mar 15

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 06 January 2016

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Oman-TOW 2B Missiles

    The Government of Oman has requested a possible sale of:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Four hundred (400) Tube-launched Optically-tracked wire guided (TOW) 2B Aero, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71F-3-RF) Seven (7) TOW 2B Aero, RF Missile (BGM-71F-3-RF) Fly-to-Buy Missiles

    The estimated value of MDE is $51 million. The total estimated cost of this effort is $51 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    The proposed sale of the TOW 2B Missiles and technical support will advance Oman's efforts to develop an integrated ground defense capability. Oman will use this capability to strengthen its homeland defense and enhance interoperability with the U.S. and other allies. Oman will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona.

    There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the U.S. Government or contractor representatives to travel to Oman for multiple periods for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training. There will be no more than three (3) contractor personnel in Oman at any one time and all efforts will take less than fourteen (14) weeks in total.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-65 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Radio Frequency (RF) Tube-launched Optically-tracked Wire guided (TOW) 2B Aero Missile (BGM-71F-3-RF) is a fly-over, shoot-down version with the actual missile flight path offset above the gunner's aim point. The TOW 2B flies over the target and uses a laser profilometer and magnetic sensor to detect and fire two downward-directed, explosively-formed penetrator warheads into the target. The TOW 2B has a range of 200 to 3750m. A Radio Frequency (RF) Data link, replaced the traditional TOW wire guidance link in all new production variants of the TOW beginning in FY 07. No RF TOW AERO technical data will be released during program development without prior approval from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Defense Exports and Cooperation. The hardware for the TOW 2B is UNCLASSIFIED. Software for performance data, lethality penetration and sensors are classified SECRET.

    2. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    4. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Oman.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02261 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA Number: 84.358A.] Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2016; Small, Rural School Achievement Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline for submission of fiscal year (FY) 2016 SRSA grant applications.

    An eligible LEA that has not previously submitted an application for SRSA funds in any prior year must submit an application electronically by the deadline in this notice.

    DATES:

    Application Deadline: May 2, 2016, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cantrell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 3E303, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5990 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under what statutory authority will FY 2016 SRSA awards be made?

    The FY 2016 SRSA awards will be made under the statutory authority in title VI, part B, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). Recently, the SRSA program was reauthorized under title V, part B, subpart 1 of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. L. 114-95). However, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), changes to the SRSA program under ESSA will not take effect until the 2017-18 school year.

    Which LEAs are eligible for an award under the SRSA program?

    For FY 2016, an LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if—

    (a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

    (b)(1) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 7 or 8 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or

    (2) The Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

    Note:

    For FY 2016, the school locale codes are the locale codes determined on the basis of the NCES school code methodology in place on the date of enactment of section 6211(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

    Which eligible LEAs must submit an application to receive an FY 2016 SRSA grant award?

    Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible party that submits an application. However, given the limited purpose served by the application under the SRSA program, the Secretary considers the application requirement to be met if an LEA submitted an SRSA application for any prior year. Unless an LEA advises the Secretary by the application deadline that it is withdrawing its application, the Secretary deems any previously submitted application to remain in effect for FY 2016. Accordingly, an eligible LEA must submit an FY 2016 application only if that LEA has not submitted an application for SRSA funds in any prior year.

    We intend to provide, by April 1, 2016, a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2016 funds on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html. This list will indicate which eligible LEAs have already met the application requirement, and which eligible LEAs must submit an application to receive an FY 2016 SRSA grant award. All eligible LEAs that need to submit an application will be highlighted in yellow on the SRSA eligibility spreadsheets.

    Electronic Submission of Applications

    An eligible LEA that is required to submit an application to receive FY 2016 SRSA funds must submit an electronic application by May 2, 2016, 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. Any application received from an eligible LEA after this deadline will be funded only to the extent that funds are available after the Department awards grants to other eligible LEAs under the program.

    Submission of an electronic application involves the use of the Department's G5 System. Prospective applicants can access the electronic application for the SRSA Program at: www.g5.gov. When applicants access this site, they will receive specific instructions regarding the information to include in the SRSA application.

    Accessible Format

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document

    The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority:

    Sections 6211-6213 of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Ann Whalen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02292 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-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: EC16-66-000.

    Applicants: EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Palisades, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Power Marketing, LLC, Entergy Power, LLC, EWO Marketing, LLC, Llano Estacado Wind, LLC, Northern Iowa Windpower, LLC, RS Cogen, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Authorization of EAM Nelson Holding, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5527.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3199-003.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of MDU Resources Inc.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5533.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-830-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 20160129 Amendment 3 to Riverside MSSA to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5369.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-831-000.

    Applicants: Cottonwood Solar, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Change in Seller Category Status to be effective 3/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5375.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-832-000.

    Applicants: RE Camelot LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Change in Seller Category Status to be effective 3/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5396.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-833-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-01-29 PRA 30 day Compliance Filing to be effective 1/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5418.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-834-000.

    Applicants: RE Columbia Two LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Change in Seller Category Status to be effective 3/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5450.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-835-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: NYPA revisions re: NTAC formula rate schedule to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5451.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-836-000.

    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: February 2016 Membership Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5458.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-837-000.

    Applicants: Imperial Valley Solar Company (IVSC) 2, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Change in Seller Category Status to be effective 3/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5474.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-838-000.

    Applicants: Maricopa West Solar PV, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Change in Seller Category Status to be effective 3/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5482.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-839-000.

    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Rate Schedule No. 165 of Otter Tail Power Company.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5526.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-840-000.

    Applicants: Emera Maine.

    Description: Notice of Termination by Emera Maine of Long-Term Transmission Service Agreements with Covanta Maine LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5549.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    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: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02256 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP09-6-001; CP09-7-001; Docket No. CP13-507-000] LNG Development Company, LLC; Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC; Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Washington Expansion Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for LNG Development Company, LLC's and Oregon Pipeline Company, LLC's Oregon LNG Terminal and Pipeline Project and Northwest Pipeline LLC's Washington Expansion Project. The first notice of schedule, issued on April 17, 2015, identified February 12, 2016 as the final EIS issuance date. However, additional information is required to respond to comments on the draft EIS. As a result, staff has requested supplemental information from the applicants and revised the schedule for issuance of the final EIS.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS June 3, 2016. 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline September 1, 2016.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the projects' progress.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp). Additional information about the projects may be accessed through the FERC's Web site at www.ferc.gov Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number(s), excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP09-6, CP09-7, or CP13-507).

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02254 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2077-039] TransCanada Hydro Northeast, 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 Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Amendment of fish passage plan.

    b. Project No.: 2077.

    c. Date Filed: December 31, 2015.

    d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Fifteen Mile Falls Project.

    f. Location: Connecticut River, near the town of Littleton in Grafton County, New Hampshire, and Caledonia County, Vermont.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John L. Ragonese, License Manager, TransCanada, US Northeast Hydro Region, 4 Park Street, Suite 402, Concord, NH 04347 (603) 225-5528.

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Joseph Enrico, (212) 273-5917, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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. Please include the project number (P-2077-039) on any comments, motions, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests that the Commission suspend the requirement or permanently amend the license to eliminate the requirement to provide downstream fish passage under Article 410 at the Fifteen Mile Falls Project. Due to suspension of the Atlantic salmon restoration program in the Connecticut River basin by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2012, the applicant believes that continued operation of the existing inclined-plane fish sampler and collection tank at the Moore development should be discontinued. In addition, the requirement to operate the fish collection trap for transporting Atlantic salmon smolts should likewise be discontinued.

    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/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field (P-2077) 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. 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 project works which are the subject of the 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: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02255 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-397-000,

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 01/20/16 Negotiated Rates—Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be effective 1/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160120-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-398-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 01/20/16 Negotiated Rates—Sequent Energy Management (HUB) 3075-89 to be effective 1/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160120-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-399-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Service Priority Update to be effective 2/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160120-5144.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-400-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Case Settlement Amendment Filing 8 to be effective 12/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 1/21/16.

    Accession Number: 20160121-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-401-000.

    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance of Cost and Revenue Study.

    Filed Date: 1/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160122-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-402-000.

    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Update to ISS Rate Schedule (Empire) to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160122-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/3/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-403-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Feb 2016. Chevron TEAM2014 Releases to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-404-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates for Feb 2016. Colonial Releases to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5016.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-405-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Feb 2016 to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-406-000.

    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 3-1-2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-407-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Maiden Delivery Lateral 3 Yr Update Filing to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-408-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-409-000.

    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Version 3.0 Compliance to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-410-000.

    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Version 3.0 Compliance to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5212.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-411-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: 01/27/16 Negotiated Rates—Mercuria Energy Gas Trading LLC (HUB) 7540-89 to be effective 1/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5223.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-412-000.

    Applicants: Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Proposed Revisions to FERC Gas Tariff to Comply With Order No. 587-W to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-413-000.

    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to Commission Order 587-W to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-414-000.

    Applicants: Midwestern Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming and Negotiated Rate Agreements—Northern Illinois Gas Company to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5394.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-415-000.

    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Version 3.0 Compliance to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5411.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-416-000.

    Applicants: Kinetica Energy Express, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance Filing for Order Nos. 587-W and 809 to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160127-5442.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-417-000.

    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: ? 13.1 Version 4.0.0 to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-418-000.

    Applicants: Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Dredging Surcharge Cost Adjustment—2016 to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5043.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-419-000.

    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Par.

    Description: Semi-Annual Transporter's Use Report of Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-420-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Company.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Company LLC.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5158.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-421-000.

    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: MoGas NRA Filing to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-422-000.

    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing MGS—Order 809—Compliance Filing—Scheduling Timeline to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-423-000.

    Applicants: Perryville Gas Storage LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing PER—Order 809—Compliance Filing—Scheduling Timeline to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5233.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-424-000.

    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing CAD—Order 809—Compliance Filing—Scheduling Timeline to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160128-5236.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/9/16.

    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.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-101-006.

    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing RP15-101 Settlement Compliance Filing to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160120-5134.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-233-002.

    Applicants: SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.—Revised Compliance Filing to be effective 12/31/2015.

    Filed Date: 1/21/16.

    Accession Number: 20160121-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/2/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    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: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02253 Filed 2-4-16; 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: EG16-42-000.

    Applicants: Enterprise Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Enterprise Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5412.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-43-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar I, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Escalante Solar I, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5413.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-44-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Escalante Solar II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5419.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-45-000.

    Applicants: Escalante Solar III, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Escalante Solar III, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5420.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-46-000.

    Applicants: Granite Mountain Solar East, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Granite Mountain Solar East, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5422.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-47-000.

    Applicants: Granite Mountain Solar West, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Granite Mountain Solar West, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5425.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-48-000.

    Applicants: Iron Springs Solar, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Iron Springs Solar, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5428.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2302-004.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-02-01_SSR 2016 Compliance Filing to be effective 9/24/2012.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5365.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-292-000.

    Applicants: Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5462.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-634-000.

    Applicants: AltaGas Pomona Energy Inc.

    Description: Supplement to December 24, 2015 AltaGas Pomona Energy Inc. tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5044.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-841-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-02-01_SA 1559 ITC Midwest-FPL Energy GIA (G113) to be effective 2/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5272.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-842-000.

    Applicants: Kay Wind, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Kay Wind Tariff Amendment Filing to be effective 2/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5414.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-843-000.

    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Conformed KU Muni Contracts Rate Case Settlements to be effective 2/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5458.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-844-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Consumers Energy Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-02-01_Rate Schedule 11 Michigan Joint Zone RAA to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5466.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/16.

    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: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02252 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14740-000] Energy Resources USA, Inc.; Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On November 27, 2015, Energy Resources USA, Inc. (Energy Resources) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Coffeeville Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project (Coffeeville Project or project) to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Coffeeville Lock and Dam on the Tombigbee River in Clark County, Alabama. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    Energy Resources' permit application is filed in competition with Lock+TM Hydro Friends Fund II, proposed Coffeeville Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 14673-000, which was publicly noticed November 24, 2015. The deadline for filing competing applications was January 25, 2016. Energy Resources competing permit application was timely filed.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 500-foot-long, 200-foot-wide intake channel; (2) a 131-foot-long, 197-foot-wide powerhouse containing three generating units with a total capacity of 33 megawatts; (3) a 400-foot-long, 20-foot-wide tailrace; (4) a 6.9/69 kilo-Volt (kV) substation; (5) a 34-mile-long addition to the existing access road; and (6) a 3-mile-long, 69 kV transmission line. The proposed project would have an estimated average annual generation of 186,000 megawatt-hours, and operate as directed by the Corps.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ander Gonzalez, Energy Resources USA Inc., 2655 Le Jeune Road, Suite 804, Coral Gables, Florida 33134; Phone: (954) 248-8425; Email: [email protected]

    FERC Contact: Christiane Casey; phone: (202) 502-8577.

    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments and motions to intervene 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-14740-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14740) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02257 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Colusa-Sutter 500-Kilovolt Transmission Line Project, Colusa and Sutter Counties, California (DOE/EIS-0514) AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy

    ACTION:

    Extension of scoping period.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 18, 2015, Western Area Power Administration (Western), an agency of the Department of Energy (DOE), announced the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to be located within Colusa and Sutter Counties, California. This proposed Project is known as the Colusa-Sutter (CoSu) 500-kV Transmission Line Project. In that previous notice, Western described the schedule for scoping meetings and advised the public that comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR were due by February 16, 2016. By this notice, Western extends the due date for comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR to April 18, 2016.

    DATES:

    The date to provide comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR is extended to April 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the proposed scope of the Draft EIS/EIR for this proposed Project may be mailed or emailed to Mr. Andrew M. Montaño, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, Western Area Power Administration, Headquarters, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, please contact Andrew M. Montaño, at (720) 962-7253 or at the address listed above in the ADDRESSES section.

    For general information on DOE's NEPA review procedures or status of a NEPA review, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-4600 or (800) 472-2756; or email: [email protected]

    For general information on the SMUD CEQA review procedures or status of the CEQA review, please contact Ms. Emily Bacchini, Environmental Management Specialist, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 6201 S. Street, Mailstop H201, Sacramento, CA 95852-1830; telephone (916) 732-6334; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 18, 2015, Western announced the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the CoSu 500-kV Transmission Line Project (80 FR 79037). The EIS/EIR will examine the potential environmental effects of the CoSu transmission line. Western will prepare the EIS/EIR with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, as the lead state agency. In the previous notice, Western described the schedule for scoping meetings for the EIS/EIR, and advised the public that comments regarding the scope of the EIS/EIR were due by February 16, 2016. Western has received requests allowing for more time to comment. By this notice, Western extends the due date for comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR to April 18, 2016.

    Dated: January 28, 2016. Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02242 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0749; FRL-9941-41] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received an application to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number of interest as shown in the body of this document, 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:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    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. Registration Applications

    EPA has received an application to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    EPA Registration numbers: 74054-1, 66222-47. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0749. Applicant: IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201, W. Princeton, NJ 08540. Active ingredient: Clofentezine. Product type: Acaricide. Proposed use: On avocado, papaya, pome fruit 11-10, cherry subgroup 12-12A, peach subgroup 12-12B, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwi) subgroup 13-F. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 20, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02309 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9025-4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs).

    Filed 01/25/2016 Through 01/29/2016.

    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://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20160022, Draft, USFS, OR, Magone Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2016, Contact: Sasha Fertig 541-575-3061 EIS No. 20160023, Draft, FHWA, UT, I-80 and State Street Interchange, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2016, Contact: Bryan Dillon 801-955-3517 EIS No. 20160024, Draft, USA, AZ, Proposed Tailings Storage Facility, Ray Mine, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/ 2016, Contact: Michael Langley 602-230-6953 EIS No. 20160025, Final, USFS, MT, North and West Big Hole Allotment Management Plans, Review Period Ends: 03/07/2016, Contact: Jessica Dhaemers 406-689-3243 EIS No. 20160026, Draft, USFS, CO, Arapahoe Basin Ski Area Projects, Comment Period Ends: 03/21/2016, Contact: Matthew Ehrman 970-945-3212 EIS No. 20160027, Final, USFS, MT, Blackfoot Travel Plan (Non-Winter), Review Period Ends: 03/07/2016, Contact: Erin Fryer 406-495-3863 Dated: February 2, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02270 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9941-99-Region 4] Availability of FY 14 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; Clean Air Act Section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 17 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Orange County Environmental Protection Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources, FL; Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department, TN). The 25 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' Fiscal Year 2011 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection.

    ADDRESSES:

    The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn Graf (404) 562- 9289 for information concerning the states and local agencies of Alabama; Tennessee and the state agency of South Carolina; Angela Isom (404) 562-9092 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Mary Echols (404) 562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia; and Shantel Shelmon (404) 562-9817 for the state and local agencies of North Carolina and Kentucky and the state agency of Mississippi. They may be contacted at the Region 4 address mentioned in the previous section of this notice.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02313 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9941-98-Region 4] Availability of FY 13 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; Clean Air Act Section 105 grantee performance evaluation reports.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 17 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Orange County Environmental Protection Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources, FL; Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department, TN). The 25 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' Fiscal Year 2011 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection.

    ADDRESSES:

    The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn Graf (404) 562-9289 for information concerning the states and local agencies of Alabama; Tennessee and the state agency of South Carolina; Angela Isom (404) 562-9092 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Mary Echols (404) 562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia; and Shantel Shelmon (404) 562-9817 for the state and local agencies of North Carolina and Kentucky and the state agency of Mississippi. They may be contacted at the Region 4 address mentioned in the previous section of this notice.

    Identification of document: Notice of availability of FY 2013 grantee performance evaluation reports as required by the Clean Air Act Section 105.

    Dated: November 2, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02311 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Deletion of Consent Agenda Items From Sunshine Act Meeting January 28, 2016.

    The following items have been deleted from the list of Consent Agenda items scheduled for consideration at the Thursday, January 28, 2016, Open Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of January 21, 2016. Items 5 through 7 have been adopted by the Commission.

    1. General Counsel: Title: Mitchell F. Brecher Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2014-338).

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Mitchell F. Brecher regarding the denial of his request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act.

    2. General Counsel Title: SMS/800 Inc. Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2015-044).

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning the Application for Review filed by SMS/800 Inc. regarding the release of records pertaining to SMS/800 Inc. in response to a request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act filed by Mark Lewyn.

    3. General Counsel: Title: Rachel A. Avan Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2014-572).

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Rachel A. Avan regarding the denial of her request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act.

    4. General Counsel: Title: Russell Carollo Request for Inspection of Records (FOIA Control No. 2015-553).

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning the Application for Review filed by Russell Carollo regarding the partial denial of his request for inspection of records under the Freedom of Information Act.

    5. Media: Title: Application of The KBOO Foundation for a New NCE (FM) Station in Chehalis, Washington.

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by CVEF challenging the grant of an application and waiver requests filed by KBOO Foundation for a new NCE FM station.

    6. Media: Title: Application for Renewal of License and Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authorization for Class A Television Station WEBR-CD in Manhattan, New York.

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Jose Luis Rodriguez seeking review of the grant of a license renewal and STA of WEBR-CD, Manhattan, New York.

    7. Consumer & Governmental Affairs: Title: San Fernando Cathedral of San Antonio, Texas, (SFC), Application for Review (CG Docket No. 06-181).

    Summary: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing an Application for Review filed by SFC seeking review of the Bureau's dismissal of SFC's petition for exemption from the Commission's closed captioning requirements.

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communication Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02329 Filed 2-3-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 4556 Meritor Savings Bank; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 4556 Meritor Savings Bank, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Meritor Savings Bank (Receivership Estate). The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective February 01, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02234 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10483 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10483 Mountain National Bank, Sevierville, Tennessee (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Mountain National Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective February 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02153 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [3064-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Re FDIC Small Business Lending Survey AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the survey collection instruments for a proposed new collection of information, a Small Business Lending Survey of banks that is proposed to be fielded in June 2016. On October 7, 2015, the FDIC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment for 60 days on the proposed information collection (80 FR 60678). Two comments were received, and are discussed below. The FDIC hereby gives notice of its plan to submit to OMB a request to approve this new information collection, and again invites comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods. All comments should reference “FDIC Small Business Lending Survey”:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary Kuiper (202.898.3877), Counsel, MB-3016, or Manuel Cabeza (202.898.3767), Counsel, MB-3105, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Interested members of the public may obtain a copy of the survey and related instructions by clicking on the link for the FDIC Small Business Lending Survey on the following Web page: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/. Interested members of the public may also obtain additional information about the collection, including a paper copy of the proposed collection and related instructions, without charge, by contacting Gary Kuiper or Manuel Cabeza at the address or phone number identified above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FDIC proposes to establish the following collection of information:

    Title: FDIC Small Business Lending Survey

    OMB Number: New collection.

    Frequency of Response: Once.

    Affected Public: FDIC-insured depository institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents:

    1,500 respondents with assets less than $1 billion.

    500 respondents with assets of $1 billion or greater.

    Average time per response:

    3 hours per respondent with assets less than $1 billion.

    6 hours per respondent with assets of $1 billion or greater.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden:

    3 hours × 1,500 respondents = 4,500 hours

    6 hours × 500 respondents = 3,000 hours.

    Total: 7,500 hours.

    General Description of Collection

    Small businesses are an important component of the U.S. economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small firms accounted for almost half of private-sector employment and 63 percent of net new jobs between mid-1993 and 2013.i Many small businesses have little or no direct access to capital markets and are thus reliant on bank financing. For banks, small business lending is an important way that they help meet their communities' needs, especially for the many banks that primarily focus on commercial rather than consumer lending.

    ihttps://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf, accessed Sep 15, 2015.

    Due to the importance of small businesses to the U.S. economy and the importance of bank lending to small businesses, the proposed FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, which surveys banks, will provide important data to complement existing sources of data on small business lending. The proposed survey data will not duplicate existing sources of data and will provide additional insight into many aspects of small business lending.

    The FDIC Small Business Lending Survey, proposed to begin data collection in June 2016, is designed to yield heretofore unavailable nationally representative estimates on the volume and details of small business loans extended by FDIC-insured banks. In addition, the survey will provide new information on banks' perceived competition and market area for small business lending. The survey will yield nationally representative estimates of small business lending by banks of several different asset size categories and with different levels of urban or rural presence.

    In addition to the questions on small business lending, the new survey will include some questions related to consumer transaction accounts that are directly responsive to the mandate in Section 7 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act of 2005 (“Reform Act”) (Pub. L. 109-173), which calls for the FDIC to conduct ongoing surveys “on efforts by insured depository institutions to bring those individuals and families who have rarely, if ever, held a checking account, a savings account or other type of transaction or check cashing account at an insured depository institution (hereafter in this section referred to as the `unbanked') into the conventional finance system.” Section 7 of the Reform Act further instructs the FDIC to consider several factors in its conduct of the surveys, including: “What cultural, language and identification issues as well as transaction costs appear to most prevent `unbanked' individuals from establishing conventional accounts.”

    The consumer account-focused questions are designed to provide a factual basis for examining identification issues and transaction costs related to establishing mainstream transaction accounts at banks. These consumer account-focused questions have been added to the Small Business Lending Survey in lieu of fielding a separate second survey to respond to the Congressional mandate. The reason for the consolidation of these efforts is to reduce the burden on banks and increase the participation rate relative to fielding two separate surveys.

    Comment Discussion

    On October 7, 2015 (80 FR 60678), the FDIC issued a request for comment on a proposed new collection of information, a Small Business Lending Survey of banks that is proposed to be fielded in June 2016. The FDIC received two comments related to this survey effort.

    One commenter suggested that the FDIC separate the proposed survey into two separate surveys, one on small business lending and one on consumer bank accounts, in order to encourage participation, reduce the burden on respondents and ensure the accuracy of information collected regarding consumer bank accounts. To ensure accurate responses and minimize the effort necessary to gather information needed for responses, the FDIC conducted three rounds of cognitive testing of the survey questions across the U.S. in 10 states with 40 banks of different sizes and that serve different types of market areas. The cognitive testing was conducted to ensure that the survey questions are clearly worded and understood by bank personnel, and primarily draw on expert knowledge or data available in existing internal reports. To ensure that the appropriate bank personnel respond to the survey questions for which they have subject-matter expertise, the FDIC has also organized the questions into distinct sections that can be accessed independently and answered by different bank personnel. In addition, the section containing the consumer bank account questions has been renamed “Information about Consumer Bank Accounts” to more clearly indicate its focus. Fielding two separate surveys at about the same time may decrease participation for both surveys, and may increase the challenge of communicating with banks about the surveys, resulting in increased confusion.

    One commenter recommended that the FDIC accurately explain the goal of the consumer bank account questions. The FDIC has revised the introduction to the “Information about Consumer Bank Accounts” section that explains the purpose of the consumer bank account questions. Additionally, the FDIC will transmit the survey to respondent banks with a cover letter, which will include an overview of the survey and a discussion of the motivation for each section.

    One commenter queried whether the question regarding “network branded general purpose reloadable prepaid cards” is intended to identify the universe of alternatives to full-service checking accounts offered by insured depository institutions, and, more specifically, expressed concern regarding the lack of definition of “network branded general purpose reloadable prepaid cards.” The FDIC intends this question to inquire about a specific type of card-based product offered by some insured depository institutions, not the universe of alternatives to full-service checking accounts. This question has been edited to refer specifically to “a Visa or MasterCard branded general purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid card that your bank markets directly to consumers in your market area.” This revision is responsive to feedback that the FDIC received from the three rounds of cognitive testing with banks of different sizes and that serve different types of markets.

    One commenter recommended that two questions about bank applicant screening processes, specifically inquiring whether prior account closure due to account mismanagement or applicant fraud on a prior account would make an applicant ineligible to open a basic, entry-level consumer checking account, be changed from accepting only “yes” and “no” responses to also including a third potential response of “it depends.” This commenter also suggested the addition of a follow-up question asking whether the bank offers an alternative account to those ineligible for the standard checking account. The FDIC has removed from the survey the question regarding applicant fraud on a prior account. The question regarding account mismanagement has been revised to include a third response, that applicants in this situation would be “eligible to open a second-chance account or an account with more limited features.” The additional answer was developed in response to feedback from cognitive testing and is responsive to the suggestion offered here by the commenter.

    One commenter cautioned that the FDIC should be mindful of the complexity and range of reasons why unbanked and under banked consumers do not fully engage with the banking system. This commenter expressed concern that the proposed consumer account questions in the survey focus on the costs of bank accounts and prior account mismanagement as impediments to opening bank accounts when studies suggest that the primary reasons for consumers not having an account are not having enough money or not wanting or needing an account. This commenter also cautioned that regulations may impede banks' ability to offer consumer products that might encourage greater participation within the banking system.

    The FDIC is interested in the full range of reasons why some consumers are unbanked. To that end, the FDIC has asked, in each biennial Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households, for all the reasons that households are unbanked. The consumer banking section of this survey is intended, in large part, to provide a factual context for interpreting some of the results of other FDIC research efforts into consumer engagement with financial services and institutions. The consumer bank account questions in this survey represent one prong in a multi-pronged approach to understanding how unbanked and lower-income consumers make decisions about using financial services, how banks engage with those consumers through the development of products and services and outreach programs, and contextual factors that influence the choices of both consumers and banks.

    One commenter expressed concern regarding the level of effort required of banks, especially community banks, to respond to the survey. The FDIC has made a concerted effort to streamline the survey and reduce the burden associated with providing responses. This effort included three rounds of cognitive testing of the survey questions with banks of different sizes and that serve different types of market areas to ensure that the survey will capture useful information while minimizing response burden. In response to feedback from the cognitive testing, the FDIC has significantly reduced the number of questions in the survey, retaining only questions that rely on expert knowledge and do not require the gathering of data, or questions that require data that can be provided from core data systems or from existing internal reports. Additionally, the FDIC has also reduced the number of question that will be answered by banks with less than $1 billion in assets. In addition, the FDIC has revised the survey to include screener questions that will also reduce the number of questions for banks with $1 billion or more in assets whose systems do not collect specific information. The revised survey is now significantly shorter for banks of all sizes.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    The FDIC will consider all comments to determine the extent to which the survey instruments should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. After the comment period closes, comments will be summarized and included in the FDIC's request to OMB for approval of the collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February, 2016.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02237 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination; 10303 Progress Bank of Florida; Tampa, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10303 Progress Bank of Florida, Tampa, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Progress Bank of Florida (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective February 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02235 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION International Ocean Transportation Supply Chain Engagement; Order

    Pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. (Shipping Act), the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) regulates the U.S. international ocean transportation system that supports the transportation of goods by water. The purposes of the Shipping Act include the requirements to “provide an efficient and economic transportation system in the ocean commerce of the United States that is, insofar as possible, in harmony with, and responsive to, international shipping practices,” and also “to promote the growth and development of United States exports through competitive and efficient ocean transportation and by placing a greater reliance on the marketplace.”

    In carrying out its broad responsibilities under the Shipping Act with respect to ocean common carriers, U.S. ports, marine terminal operators, ocean transportation intermediaries and the American exporters and importers they serve, the Commission has developed an understanding of and an expertise in evaluating the U.S. international supply chain. As the premier competition agency with oversight responsibilities for the United States foreign ocean transportation system, the Commission has extensive experience with global maritime and marine terminal innovation and efficiency issues.

    Maintaining the effectiveness and reliability of America's global supply chain is critically important to the Nation's continued economic vitality. Approximately $980 billion of containerized ocean commerce moves through U.S. ports annually. Unfortunately, congestion and related bottlenecks at ports and other points in the Nation's supply chain have become a serious risk to the growth of the U.S. economy, job growth, and to our Nation's competitive position in the world. Past congestion at major U.S. ports has highlighted the impact of congestion on the U.S. economy. As a result, the U.S. economy suffered billions of dollars in losses to the supply chain.

    In addition, congestion problems contributed to hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for U.S. agricultural exporters including poultry and meat farmers. Perishable fruit and vegetable exporters suffered when their cargo was not loaded onto ships and sent overseas within specific time frames.

    Although the congestion crisis has receded, unresolved supply chain problems that could produce new challenges remain.

    In response to those events, and the desire of affected parties to find ways to prevent or mitigate similar future occurrences, the Commission hosted four regional port forums during the fall of 2014, in San Pedro, CA (West Coast Port Forum), Baltimore, MD (Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Port Forum), Charleston, SC (South Atlantic Port Forum) and New Orleans, LA (Gulf Coast Port Forum). The forums brought together port officials, ocean carriers, trucking and warehousing service providers, beneficial cargo owners, marine terminal operators, stevedoring companies, ocean transportation intermediaries, and port labor to discuss and offer ideas to address port congestion. The comments and suggestions offered at those forums were summarized and developed in an FMC report entitled “U.S. Port Congestion & Related International Supply Chain Issues: Causes, Consequences and Challenges” that was released in July 2015.

    The report identified six major themes from the port forums: Investment and planning; chassis availability and related issues; port drayage and truck turn times; extended gate hours, PierPASS, and congestion pricing; vessel and terminal operations; and supply chain planning, collaboration, and communication. Some of these topics involve longer-term issues such as investment and planning. Others focus on short and medium-term concerns. All of them, however, are at the heart of current efforts by various groups to develop the flexible, resilient and reliable systems necessary for ensuring well-functioning international supply chains.

    The Commission has also advanced port and marine terminal efforts to improve supply chain efficiency by expediting the implementation of port and terminal amendments aimed at enhancing the efficient flow of cargo. For example, several port and marine terminal operator agreements on file with the Commission that cover the Pacific Coast ports, commit the parties to exploring measures for achieving improvements with regard to congestion, efficiency, fluidity, and other operational conditions.*

    * The Los Angeles and Long Beach Port Infrastructure and Environmental Programs Cooperative Working Agreement (FMC No. 201219), West Coast MTO Agreement (FMC No. 201143), Pacific Ports Operational Improvements Agreement (FMC No. 201227), Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (FMC No. 202-011284), and Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Terminal Operator Administrative and Implementation Agreement (FMC No. 201178).

    Given the economic importance of reliable port and terminal operations to the effectiveness of the United States international supply chain, and the Commission's mandate to ensure an efficient and economic transportation system for its ocean commerce, the Commission has a clear and compelling responsibility to actively assist efforts to improve the effectiveness of the global supply chain.

    Therefore it is ordered, That, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41302, 40302, 41101 to 41109, 41301 to 41309, and 40104, and 46 CFR 502.281 et seq., Commissioner Rebecca F. Dye engage supply chain stakeholders in public or non-public discussions to identify commercial solutions to certain unresolved supply chain issues that interfere with the smooth operation of the U.S. international supply chain, focusing on the San Pedro Bay ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach.

    It is further ordered, That, the Commissioner form a supply chain innovation team, composed of leaders from all commercial sectors of the U.S. international supply chain, to develop commercial solutions to port congestion and related supply chain challenges.

    It is further ordered, That, the Commissioner provide a preliminary report and periodic updates to the Commission on the results of efforts undertaken by this Order.

    It is further ordered, That, the Commissioner have full authority under 46 CFR 502.281 to 502.291, to perform such duties as may be necessary in accordance with U.S. law and Commission regulations. The Commissioner will be assisted by staff members as may be assigned by the Chairman.

    It is further ordered, That, this Proceeding be discontinued upon the acceptance of a final report and possible recommendations by the Commissioner, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission; and

    It is finally ordered, That, notice of this Order be published in the Federal Register.

    By The Commission.

    Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02189 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-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 February 29, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. MB Financial, Inc., Chicago, Illinois; to merge with American Chartered Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire American Chartered Bank, both of Schaumburg, Illinois.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. First Security Bancorp, Searcy, Arkansas, to acquire an additional one percent for a total of 10.91% of the voting shares of CrossFirst Holdings, LLC, Leawood, Kansas, and thereby increase its interest in CrossFirst Bank, Leawood, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02204 Filed 2-4-16; 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 February 23, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Carole S. Hoover Revocable Trust and Carole S. Hoover, as trustee of the Carole S. Hoover Revocable Trust, both of Eudora, Kansas, to retain control of Eudora Bancshares, Inc., parent of Kaw Valley State Bank, both of Eudora, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02291 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-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 February 29, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. MainSource Financial Group, Inc., Greensburg, Indiana; to merge with Cheviot Financial Corporation, Cincinnati, Ohio, and indirectly acquire control of Cheviot Savings Bank, Cheviot, Ohio, and thereby operate a savings association pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02203 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by IHC Reporting Requirements, by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposals

    The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the revision, without extension, of the following reports:

    1. Report title: Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies, Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Large Holding Companies, Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies, Financial Statements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Holding Companies.1

    1 The family of FR Y-9 reporting forms also contains the Parent Company Only Financial Statements for Small Holding Companies (FR Y-9SP), the Financial Statements for Employee Stock Ownership Plan Holding Companies (FR Y-9ES), and the Supplement to the Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies (FR Y-9CS) which are not being revised.

    Agency form number: FR Y-9C, FR Y-9LP.

    OMB control number: 7100-0128.

    Frequency: Quarterly, annually.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), securities holding companies (SHCs), and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), (collectively, “holding companies”).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-9C (non-Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 131,777 hours; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 2,500 hours; FR Y-9LP: 17,262 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-9C (non-Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 50.84 hours; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 52.09 hours; FR Y-9LP: 5.25 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-9C (non-Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 648; FR Y-9C (Advanced Approaches HCs or other respondents): 12; FR Y-9LP: 822.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), section 10 of Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)), 12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). Confidential treatment is not routinely given to the financial data in this report. However, confidential treatment for the reporting information, in whole or in part, can be requested in accordance with the instructions to the form, pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: Pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and HOLA, the Federal Reserve requires HCs to provide standardized financial statements to fulfill the Federal Reserve's statutory obligation to supervise these organizations. HCs file the FR Y-9C and FR Y-9LP quarterly, the FR Y-9SP semiannually, and the FR Y-9ES annually.

    2. Report title: Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Holding Companies and the Abbreviated Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Holding Companies.

    Agency form number: FR Y-11, FR Y-11S.

    OMB control number: 7100-0244.

    Frequency: Quarterly and annually.

    Reporters: Holding companies.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-11 (quarterly): 19,502; FR Y-11 (annual): 2,258; FR Y-11S: 473.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-11 (quarterly): 6.8; FR Y-11 (annual): 6.8; FR Y-11S: 1.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-11 (quarterly): 717; FR Y-11 (annual): 332; FR Y-11S: 473.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), section 10 of Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)), 12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). Overall, the Federal Reserve does not consider these data to be confidential. However, a respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(8)). The applicability of these exemptions would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The FR Y-11 reporting forms collect financial information for individual non-functionally regulated U.S. nonbank subsidiaries of domestic holding companies (i.e., bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and securities holding companies). Holding companies file the FR Y-11 on a quarterly or annual basis or the FR Y-11S annually predominantly based on asset size thresholds, and for the FR Y-11S, based on an additional threshold related to the percentage of consolidated assets of the top-tier organization. The FR Y-11 data are used with other holding company data to assess the condition of holding companies that are heavily engaged in nonbanking activities and to monitor the volume, nature, and condition of their nonbanking operations.

    3. Report title: Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations and the Abbreviated Financial Statements of Foreign Subsidiaries of U.S. Banking Organizations.

    Agency form number: FR 2314 and FR 2314S.

    OMB control number: 7100-0073.

    Frequency: Quarterly and semiannually.

    Reporters: U.S. state member banks, holding companies, Edge or agreement corporations, and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR 2314 (quarterly): 18,427; FR 2314 (annual): 2,640; FR 2314S: 480.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR 2314 (quarterly): 6.6; FR 2314 (annual): 6.6; FR 2314S: 1.

    Number of respondents: FR 2314 (quarterly): 698; FR 2314 (annual): 400; FR 2314S: 480.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 324, 602, 625, 1844(c), 1467a(b), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). Overall, the Federal Reserve does not consider these data to be confidential. However, a respondent may request confidential treatment pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(8)). The applicability of these exemptions would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The FR 2314 reporting forms collect financial information for non-functionally regulated direct or indirect foreign subsidiaries of U.S. state member banks (SMBs), Edge and agreement corporations, and holding companies (i.e., bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and securities holding companies). Parent organizations (SMBs, Edge and agreement corporations, or holding companies) file the FR 2314 on a quarterly or annual basis or the FR 2314S annually based predominantly on asset size thresholds, and for the FR 2314S, based on an additional threshold related to the percentage of consolidated assets of the top-tier organization. The FR 2314 data are used to identify current and potential problems at the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies, to monitor the activities of U.S. banking organizations 2 in specific countries, and to develop a better understanding of activities within the industry, in general, and of individual institutions, in particular.

    2 For purposes of this notice, banking organizations include bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and state member banks that are subject to the market risk rule.

    4. Report title: Consolidated Bank Holding Company Report of Equity Investments in Nonfinancial Companies, and the Annual Report of Merchant Banking Investments Held for an Extended Period.

    Agency form number: FR Y-12 and FR Y-12A.

    OMB control number: 7100-0300.

    Frequency: Quarterly, semi-annually, and annually.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies (BHCs), financial holding companies (FHCs), U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-12 Initial: 1,716 hours, FR Y-12 Ongoing: 2,508 hours, FR Y-12A Initial: 182 hours, FR Y-12A Ongoing: 224 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-12 Initial: 33 hours, FR Y-12 Ongoing: 16.5 hours, FR Y-12A Initial: 14 hours, FR Y-12A Ongoing: 7 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-12 Initial: 13, FR Y-12 Ongoing: 41 FR Y-12A Initial: 13, FR Y-12A Ongoing: 32.

    General description of report: This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), section 10 of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). The FR Y-12 data are not considered confidential, however, a BHC or SLHC may request confidential treatment pursuant to Sections (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The FR Y-12A data are considered confidential pursuant to sections (b)(4) and (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR Y-12 collects information from certain domestic BHCs and SLHCs on their equity investments in nonfinancial companies on four schedules: Type of Investments, Type of Security, Type of Entity within the Banking Organization, and Nonfinancial Investment Transactions during Reporting Period. The FR Y-12A collects data from financial holding companies (FHCs) which hold merchant banking investments that are approaching the end of the holding period permissible under Regulation Y. These data serve as an important risk-monitoring device for FHCs active in this business line by allowing supervisory staff to monitor an FHC's activity between review dates. They also serve as an early warning mechanism to identify FHCs whose activities in this area are growing rapidly and therefore warrant special supervisory attention.

    5. Report title: Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection.

    Agency form number: FR Y-14A/Q/M.

    OMB control number: 7100-0341.

    Frequency: Annually, semi-annually, quarterly, and monthly.

    Reporters: Any top-tier bank holding company (BHC), and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHC), (other than an FBO), that has $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, as determined based on: (i) The average of the BHC's or IHC's total consolidated assets in the four most recent quarters as reported quarterly on the BHC's or IHC's Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) (OMB No. 7100-0128); or (ii) the average of the BHC's or IHC's total consolidated assets in the most recent consecutive quarters as reported quarterly on the BHC's or IHC's FR Y-9Cs, if the BHC or IHC has not filed an FR Y-9C for each of the most recent four quarters. Reporting is required as of the first day of the quarter immediately following the quarter in which it meets this asset threshold, unless otherwise directed by the Federal Reserve.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-14A: Summary, 94,576 hours; Macro scenario, 2,852 hours; Operational Risk, 552 hours; Regulatory capital transitions; 1,058 hours, Regulatory capital instruments, 920 hours. FR Y-14Q: Securities, 2,208 hours; Retail, 2,944 hours, Pre-provision net revenue (PPNR), 130,824 hours; Corporate loans, 12,144 hours; CRE, 11,868; Trading, 169,488 hours; Regulatory capital transitions, 4,232 hours; Regulatory capital instruments, 7,360 hours; Operational risk, 9,200 hours; Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR) Valuation, 2,400 hours; Supplemental, 736 hours; and Retail Fair Value Option/Held for Sale (Retail FVO/HFS), 2,240 hours; CCR, 40,656 hours; and Balances, 2,944 hours. FR Y-14M: 1st lien mortgage, 250,920 hours; Home equity, 244,800 hours; and Credit card, 189,720 hours. FR Y-14 On-going automation revisions, 15,840 hours. FR Y-14 implementation, 93,600 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-14A: Summary, 1,028 hours; Macro scenario, 31 hours; Operational Risk, 12 hours; Regulatory capital transitions, 23 hours; Regulatory capital instruments, 20 hours. FR Y-14Q: Securities, 12 hours; Retail, 16 hours; PPNR, 711 hours; Corporate loans, 69 hours; CRE, 69 hours; Trading, 1,926 hours; Regulatory capital transitions, 23 hours; Regulatory capital instruments, 40 hours; Operational risk, 50 hours; MSR Valuation, 24 hours; Supplemental, 4 hours; and Retail FVO/HFS, 16 hours; CCR, 508 hours; and Balances, 16 hours. FR Y-14M: 1st lien mortgage, 510 hours; Home equity, 510 hours; and Credit card, 510 hours. FR Y-14 On-Going automation revisions, 480 hours. FR Y-14 Implementation, 7,200 hours.

    Number of respondents: 46.

    General description of report: This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)).

    As these data are collected as part of the supervisory process, they are subject to confidential treatment under exemption 8 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). In addition, commercial and financial information contained in these information collections may be exempt from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)), if disclosure would likely have the effect of (1) impairing the government's ability to obtain the necessary information in the future, or (2) causing substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent. Such exemptions would be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Abstract: The data collected through the FR Y-14A/Q/M schedules provide the Federal Reserve with the additional information and perspective needed to help ensure that large BHCs have strong, firm‐wide risk measurement and management processes supporting their internal assessments of capital adequacy and that their capital resources are sufficient given their business focus, activities, and resulting risk exposures. The annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) exercise is also complemented by other Federal Reserve supervisory efforts aimed at enhancing the continued viability of large BHCs, including continuous monitoring of BHCs' planning and management of liquidity and funding resources and regular assessments of credit, market and operational risks, and associated risk management practices. Information gathered in this data collection is also used in the supervision and regulation of these financial institutions. In order to fully evaluate the data submissions, the Federal Reserve may conduct follow up discussions with or request responses to follow up questions from respondents, as needed.

    The Capital Assessments and Stress Testing information collection consists of the FR Y-14A, Q, and M reports. The semi-annual FR Y-14A collects information on the stress tests conducted by BHCs, including quantitative projections of balance sheet, income, losses, and capital across a range of macroeconomic scenarios, and qualitative information on methodologies used to develop internal projections of capital across scenarios.3 The quarterly FR Y-14Q and the monthly FR Y-14M are used to support supervisory stress test models and for continuous monitoring efforts. The quarterly FR Y-14Q collects granular data on BHCs' various asset classes, including loans, securities and trading assets, and PPNR for the reporting period. The monthly FR Y-14M comprises three retail loan- and portfolio-level collections, and one detailed address matching collection to supplement two of the portfolio and loan-level collections.

    3 BHCs that must re-submit their capital plan generally also must provide a revised FR Y-14A in connection with their resubmission.

    6. Report title: Banking Organization System Risk Report.

    Agency form number: FR Y-15.

    OMB control number: 7100-0352.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Reporters: U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs) and BHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organizations identified as global systemically important banks (GSIBs) that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Initial: 4,000 hours; Ongoing: 60,952 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Initial: 1,000 hours; Ongoing 401 hours.

    Number of respondents: 38.

    General description of report: This collection of information is mandatory pursuant to section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), section 10 of HOLA (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b), sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the International Banking Act (IBA) (12 U.S.C. 3106 and 3108(a)), sections 163 and 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5363, 5365), section 604 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). Except for those items subject to a delayed release, the individual data items collected on the FR Y-15 will be made available to the public for report dates beginning December 31, 2013. Though confidential treatment will not be routinely given to the financial data collected on the FR Y-15, respondents may request such treatment for any information that they believe is subject to an exemption from disclosure pursuant to sections (b)(4), (b)(6), or (b)(8) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(8)).

    Abstract: The FR Y-15 annual report collects systemic risk data from U.S. BHCs with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, and any U.S.-based organizations identified as GSIBs that do not otherwise meet the consolidated assets threshold for BHCs. The Federal Reserve uses the FR Y-15 data primarily to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the systemic risk profile of the institutions that are subject to enhanced prudential standards under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (DFA).

    7. Report title: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Associated with Regulation Y (Capital Plans)

    Agency form number: Reg Y-13.

    OMB control number: 7100-0342.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Reporters: BHCs and IHCs.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (225.8(e)(1)(i)), 774,800 hours; annual capital planning reporting (225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 5,200 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (225.8(e)(1)(iii)), 6,500 hours; data collections reporting ((225.8(e)(3)(i)-(vi)), 65,325 hours; data collections reporting (225.8(e)(4)), 2,300 hours; review of capital plans by the Federal Reserve reporting (225.8(f)(3)(i)), 240 hours; prior approval request requirements reporting (225.8(g)(1), (3), & (4)), 3,900 hours; prior approval request requirements exceptions (225.8(g)(3)(iii)(A)), 240 hours; prior approval request requirements reports (225.8(g)(6)), 240 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Annual capital planning recordkeeping (225.8(e)(1)(i)), 11,920 hours; annual capital planning reporting (225.8(e)(1)(ii)), 80 hours; annual capital planning recordkeeping (225.8(e)(1)(iii)), 100 hours; data collections reporting ((225.8(e)(3)(i)-(vi)), 1,005 hours; data collections reporting (225.8(e)(4)), 100 hours; review of capital plans by the Federal Reserve reporting (225.8(f)(3)(i)), 16 hours; prior approval request requirements reporting (225.8(g)(1), (3), & (4)), 100 hours; prior approval request requirements exceptions (225.8(g)(3)(iii)(A)), 16 hours; prior approval request requirements reports (225.8(g)(6)), 16 hours.

    Number of respondents: 65.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to sections 616(a) of the Dodd Frank Act, which amended section 5(b) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(b)), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). The capital plan information submitted by the covered BHC will consist of confidential and proprietary modeling information and highly sensitive business plans, such as acquisition plans submitted to the Federal Reserve for approval. Therefore, it appears the information will be subject to withholding under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)).

    Abstract: Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225) requires large bank holding companies (BHCs) to submit capital plans to the Federal Reserve on an annual basis and to require such BHCs to request prior approval from the Federal Reserve under certain circumstances before making a capital distribution.4

    4 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

    8. Report title: Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations, the Abbreviated Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries Held by Foreign Banking Organizations, and the Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Banking Organizations.

    Agency form number: FR Y-6; FR Y-7; FR Y-10; FR Y-10E.

    OMB control number: 7100-0297.

    Frequency: FR Y-6: Annual; FR Y-7: Annual; FR Y-10: Event-generated; FR Y-10E: Event-generated.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies (BHCs), U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), and savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) (collectively, holding companies), securities holding companies, foreign banking organizations (FBOs), state member banks unaffiliated with a BHC, Edge Act and agreement corporations, and nationally chartered banks that are not controlled by a BHC (with regard to their foreign investments only).

    Estimated annual reporting hours: FR Y-6 initial: 130 hours; FR Y-6 ongoing: 26,549 hours; FR Y-7: 972 hours; FR Y-10 initial: 530 hours; FR Y-10 ongoing: 39,735 hours; FR Y-10E: 2,649 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: FR Y-6 initial: 10 hours; FR Y-6 ongoing: 5.5 hours; FR Y-7: 4 hours; FR Y-10 initial: 1 hour; FR Y-10 ongoing: 2.5 hours; FR Y-10E: 0.5 hours.

    Number of respondents: FR Y-6 initial: 13; FR Y-6 ongoing: 4,827; FR Y-7: 243; FR Y-10 initial: 530; FR Y-10 ongoing: 5,298; FR Y-10E: 5,298.

    General description of report: These information collections are mandatory as follows:

    FR Y-6: Section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)); sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106 and 3108(a)); sections 11(a)(1), 25, and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (FRA) (12 U.S.C. 248(a), 602, and 611a); and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1)), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)).

    FR Y-7: Sections 8(a) and 13(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106(a) and 3108(a)) and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1), respectively).

    FR Y-10 and FR Y-10E: Sections 4(k) and 5(c)(1)(A) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(k), 1844(c)(1)(A)), section 8(a) of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3106(a)), sections 11(a)(1), 25(7), and 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)(1), 321, 601, 602, 611a, 615, and 625), and sections 113, 312, 618, and 809 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5361, 5412, 1850a(c)(1), and 5468(b)(1), respectively).

    The data collected in the FR Y-6, FR Y-7, FR Y-10, and FR Y-10E are not considered confidential. With regard to information that a banking organization may deem confidential, the institution may request confidential treatment of such information under one or more of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552). The most likely case for confidential treatment will be based on FOIA exemption 4, which permits an agency to exempt from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential,” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). To the extent an institution can establish the potential for substantial competitive harm, such information would be protected from disclosure under the standards set forth in National Parks & Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Exemption 6 of FOIA might also apply with regard to the respondents' submission of non-public personal information of owners, shareholders, directors, officers and employees of respondents. Exemption 6 covers “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)). All requests for confidential treatment would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and in response to a specific request for disclosure.

    Abstract: The FR Y-6 is an annual information collection submitted by top-tier holding companies and non-qualifying FBOs. It collects financial data, an organization chart, verification of domestic branch data, and information about shareholders. The Federal Reserve uses the data to monitor holding company operations and determine holding company compliance with the provisions of the BHC Act, Regulation Y (12 CFR 225), the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA), and Regulation LL (12 CFR 238).

    The FR Y-7 is an annual information collection submitted by qualifying FBOs to update their financial and organizational information with the Federal Reserve. The FR Y-7 collects financial, organizational, and managerial information. The Federal Reserve uses information to assess an FBO's ability to be a continuing source of strength to its U.S. operations, and to determine compliance with U.S. laws and regulations.

    The FR Y-10 is an event-generated information collection submitted by FBOs; top-tier holding companies; security holding companies as authorized under Section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 1850a(c)(1)); state member banks unaffiliated with a BHC; Edge Act and agreement corporations that are not controlled by a member bank, a domestic BHC, or a FBO; and nationally chartered banks that are not controlled by a BHC (with regard to their foreign investments only) to capture changes in their regulated investments and activities. The Federal Reserve uses the data to monitor structure information on subsidiaries and regulated investments of these entities engaged in banking and nonbanking activities. The FR Y-10E is a free-form supplement that may be used to collect additional structural information deemed to be critical and needed in an expedited manner.

    9. Report title: Risk Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework.

    Agency form number: FR 4200.

    OMB control number: 7100-0313.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: National banks, state member banks, Federal savings associations, U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), and top-tier bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies domiciled in the United States not subject to the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (12 CFR part 225, appendix C)), except certain savings and loan holding companies that are substantially engaged in insurance underwriting or commercial activities.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Minimum capital ratios ongoing recordkeeping: 22,896 hours; standardized approach ongoing recordkeeping: 28,620 hours; standardized approach one-time recordkeeping: 174,582 hours; standardized approach ongoing disclosure: 3,281 hours; standardized approach one-time disclosure: 5,656 hours; advanced approach ongoing recordkeeping: 2,482 hours; advanced approach one-time recordkeeping: 7,140 hours; advanced approach ongoing disclosure: 595 hours; advanced approach one-time disclosure: 4,760 hours; disclosure table 13: 500 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Minimum capital ratios ongoing recordkeeping: 16 hours; standardized approach ongoing recordkeeping: 20 hours; standardized approach one-time recordkeeping: 122 hours; standardized approach ongoing disclosure: 131.25 hours; standardized approach one-time disclosure: 226.25 hours; advanced approach ongoing recordkeeping: 146 hours; advanced approach one-time recordkeeping: 420 hours; advanced approach ongoing disclosure: 35 hours; advanced approach one-time disclosure: 280 hours; disclosure table 13: 5 hours.

    Number of respondents: 1,431.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to section 38(o) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 U.S.C. 1831o(c)), section 908 of the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 3907(a)(1)), the Federal Reserve Act, (12 U.S.C. 324), and section 5(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). If a respondent considers the information to be trade secrets and/or privileged such information could be withheld from the public under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Additionally, to the extent that such information may be contained in an examination report such information maybe also be withheld from the public, 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(8).

    Abstract: The Risk Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework Information Collection (FR 4200) collects information relating to the regulatory capital rule (12 CFR part 217). The regulatory capital rule includes a common equity tier1 minimum risk-based capital requirement, a minimum tier 1 risk-based capital requirement, a minimum total risk-based capital requirement, a minimum leverage ratio of tier 1 capital to average total consolidated assets, and, for banking organizations subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules, a supplementary leverage ratio that incorporates both on- and off-balance sheet exposures. The regulatory capital rule also limits a banking organization's capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments to the extent that the banking organization does not hold a specified “buffer” of common equity tier 1 capital in addition to the minimum risk-based capital requirements. The FR 4200 information collection requires respondents to: (a) Obtain legal opinions for certain agreements and maintain sufficient written documentation of this legal review, (b) obtain prior written approvals for the use of certain measures or methodologies, (c) maintain policies, procedures, and programs; (d) perform due diligence, perform and document analyses, or make a demonstration to supervisors; (e) develop plans for compliance and notify supervisors of certain changes; and (f) provide certain disclosures regarding their structure, regulatory capital, the risks to which they are subject, and other aspects of their operations. These obligations arise pursuant to sections _.3, _.22, _.35, _.37, _.41, _.42, _.62, _.63, _.121 through _.124, _.132, _.141, _.142, _.153, _.171, and _.173 of the regulatory capital rule (12 CFR part 217). Under most circumstances, IHCs would not be subject to the information collection requirements associated with sections _.62, _.63, _.121 through _.124, _.132, _.141, _.142, _.153, _.171, and _.173 of the regulatory capital rule.

    10. Report title: Risk-Based Capital Guidelines: Market Risk.

    Agency form number: FR 4201.

    OMB control number: 7100-0314.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: Banking organization, including U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHCs), with aggregate trading assets and trading liabilities equal to (1) 10 percent or more of quarter-end total assets or (2) $1 billion or more.

    Estimated annual reporting hours: Prior written approvals reporting: 28,800 hours; policies and procedures recordkeeping: 2,880 hours; trading and hedging strategy recordkeeping: 480 hours; internal models recordkeeping: 3,840 hours; section 4(b) backtesting and stress testing: 1,920 hours; sections 5(c) and 9(c) backtesting and stress testing: 3,120 hours; securitizations backtesting and stress testing: 14,400 hours; disclosure policy backtesting and stress testing: 1,200 hours; quantitative disclosure: 1,920 hours; qualitative disclosure: 360 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Prior written approvals reporting: 960 hours; policies and procedures recordkeeping: 96 hours; trading and hedging strategy recordkeeping: 16 hours; internal models recordkeeping: 128 hours; section 4(b) backtesting and stress testing: 16 hours; sections 5(c) and 9(c) backtesting and stress testing: 104 hours; securitizations backtesting and stress testing: 120 hours; disclosure policy backtesting and stress testing: 40 hours; quantitative disclosure: 16 hours; qualitative disclosure: 12 hours.

    Number of respondents: 30.

    General description of report: This information collection is mandatory pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 324 and 12 U.S.C. 1844(c), section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C. 5365), and section 252.153(b)(2) of Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.153(b)(2)). Information collected pursuant to the reporting requirements of the FR 4201 (specifically, information related to seeking regulatory approval for the use of certain incremental and comprehensive risk models and methodologies under sections 217.208 and 217.209) is exempt from disclosure pursuant to exemption (b)(8) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C § 552(b)(8)), and exemption (b)(4) of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Exemption (b)(8) applies because the reported information is contained in or related to examination reports. Exemption (b)(4) applies because the information provided to obtain regulatory approval of the incremental or comprehensive risk models is confidential business information the release of which could cause substantial competitive harm to the reporting company. The recordkeeping requirements of the FR 4201 require banking organizations to maintain documentation regarding certain policies and procedures, trading and hedging strategies, and internal models. These documents would remain on the premises of the banking organizations and accordingly would not generally be subject to a FOIA request. To the extent these documents are provided to the regulators, they would be exempt under exemption (b)(8), and may be exempt under exemption (b)(4). Exemption (b)(4) protects from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” The disclosure requirements of the FR 4201 do not raise any confidentiality issues because they require banking organizations to make certain disclosures public.

    Abstract: The market risk rule is an integral part of the Board's regulatory capital framework. The collection of information permits the Federal Reserve to monitor the market risk profile of banking organizations that it regulates and evaluate the impact and competitive implications of the market risk rule on those banking organizations and the industry as a whole. The collection of information provides the most current statistical data available to identify areas of market risk on which to focus for onsite and offsite examinations and allows the Federal Reserve to assess and monitor the levels and components of each reporting institution's risk-based capital requirements for market risk and the adequacy of the institution's capital under the market risk rule. Finally, the collection of information contained in the market risk rule is necessary to ensure capital adequacy of banking organizations according to their level of market risk and assists banking organizations in implementing and validating the market risk framework.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to collect financial information for U.S. Intermediate Holding Companies (IHCs) of foreign banking organizations (FBOs) for the regulatory report forms listed above, beginning with the reporting period ending on September 30, 2016, to implement the enhanced prudential standards for FBOs adopted pursuant to Subparts L, M, N, and O of Regulation YY to indicate and to certify to the Federal Reserve Board their compliance with those requirements.

    With regard to the FR Y-14 series of reports, the IHC would be required to complete the FR Y-14 reports in the same manner as a BHC, and would be subject to requirements to report historical data with respect to its U.S. bank and nonbank operations. The reporting instructions provide IHCs with the submission dates for each of the FR Y-14 reports, including the onboarding filing delays that apply to certain schedules, and the requirements for reporting historical data for the FR Y-14Q Retail and PPNR schedules. IHCs will also receive this information in an onboarding memo. The historical data are necessary for the Board to perform a supervisory assessment of the capital plans of IHCs and to conduct supervisory stress tests. The Federal Reserve expects to address requirements for the Market Shock exercise, as they would apply to IHCs with significant trading activity, in a separate proposal.

    However, many IHCs may have difficulty reporting historical data prior to formation of the IHC because of the structural reorganizations associated with complying with the IHC requirement. In addition, the ability of IHCs to report historical data may differ because compliance burdens may vary in complexity across IHCs. The Federal Reserve invites comment on the ability of IHCs to report historical data, including, but not limited to

    • a description, with supporting detail, of any challenges that IHCs may face in providing historical data;

    • specific compliance burdens for IHCs, such as issues related to systems integration or data retention policies; and

    • whether an IHC would be able to report historical data if granted an extension of time, and if so, how much additional time would be needed.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02230 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16MM; Docket No. CDC-2016-0019] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project entitled Performance Monitoring of “Working with Publicly Funded Health Centers to Reduce Teen Pregnancy among Youth from Vulnerable Populations.” CDC seeks to collect information to monitor performance of three awardees working on teen pregnancy prevention project and to determine training and technical assistance needs to address any performance issues.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0019 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Performance Monitoring of “Working with Publicly Funded Health Centers to Reduce Teen Pregnancy among Youth from Vulnerable Populations”—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In 2014, the US rate of 24.2 births per 1,000 women aged 15-19 was the highest of all Western industrialized countries. Access to reproductive health services and the most effective types of contraception have been shown to reduce the likelihood that teens become pregnant. Nevertheless, reviews of recent research and teen pregnancy prevention projects, including a collaborative project implemented by CDC and the HHS Office of Adolescent Health (2010-2015), demonstrate that many health centers serving adolescents do not engage in youth-friendly best practices that may enhance access to care and to the most effective types of contraception. Furthermore, youth at highest risk of experiencing a teen pregnancy are often not connected to the reproductive health care that they need, even when they are part of a population that is known to be at high risk for a teen pregnancy. Significant racial, ethnic and geographic disparities in teen birth rates persist and continue to be a focus of public health efforts.

    To address these challenges, CDC is providing funding to three organizations to strengthen partnerships and processes that improve reproductive health services for teens. CDC's awardees will work with approximately 35 publicly funded health centers to implement organizational changes and provider training based on best practices in adolescent reproductive health care. In addition, awardees will work with approximately 30 youth-serving organizations (YSO) to provide staff training and develop systematic approaches to identifying youth who are at risk for a teen pregnancy and referring those youth to reproductive health care services. Finally, awardees will develop communication campaigns that increase awareness of the partner health centers' services for teens. Activities are expected to result in changes to health center and YSO partners' policies, to staff practices, and to youth health care seeking and teen pregnancy prevention behaviors.

    Although similar activities have been implemented in a variety of teen pregnancy prevention projects, the proposed combination of efforts, and the incorporation of youth-friendly best practices, have not been previously implemented or evaluated. CDC therefore plans to collect information needed to assess these efforts. Information will be collected from the CDC awardees, the health center and YSO partner organizations, and the youth served by the health center partner organizations. CDC will use the information to determine the types of training and technical assistance that are needed, to monitor whether awardees meet objectives related to health center and YSO partners' policies and staff practices, to support a data-driven quality improvement process for adolescent sexual and reproductive health care services and referrals, and to assess whether the project model was effective in increasing the utilization of services by youth.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation in the organizational assessment activities is required for awardees and partner organizations. Participation in the Health Center Youth Survey is voluntary for youth and will not involve the collection of identifiable personal information. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total
  • burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Awardee Training and Technical Assistance Tool 3 12 2 72 Quarterly Performance Measure Reporting Tool 3 3 2 18 Annual Performance Measure Reporting Tool 3 1 6 18 Health Center Project Coordinator Quarterly Performance Measure Reporting Tool 35 3 2 210 Annual Performance Measure Reporting Tool 35 1 4 140 Health Center Organizational Assessment 35 1 2 70 Health Center Providers Health Center Provider Survey 175 1 30/60 88 Youth Health Center Youth Survey 1,750 1 15/60 438 YSO Project Coordinator Quarterly Performance Measure Reporting Tool 30 3 1 90 Annual Performance Measure Reporting Tool 30 1 75/60 38 Youth Serving Organization (YSO) Organizational Assessment 30 1 1 30 YSO Staff YSO Staff Survey 450 1 30/60 225 Total 1,437
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02173 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0980; Docket No. CDC-2016-0018] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the proposed revision of the information collection project entitled National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS), formerly known as the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS). The NEARS collects data on foodborne illness outbreaks and environmental assessments routinely conducted by food safety programs during outbreak investigations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0018 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS), formerly the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS; OMB Control No. 0920-0980; expiration date 08/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Since 2014, environmental factor data associated with foodborne outbreaks have been reported to the National Voluntary Environmental Assessment Information System (NVEAIS). CDC intends to seek a three-year Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise the NVEAIS, hereafter referred to as the National Environmental Assessment Reporting System (NEARS). In 2015, it was recommended that NVEAIS be renamed as NEARS. This name change will be an enhancement of the current surveillance system and was recommended by CDC leadership, and other food safety partners who desired to simplify and improve the name.

    The goal of NEARS remains to collect data on foodborne illness outbreaks and environmental assessments routinely conducted by local, state, federal, territorial, or tribal food safety programs during outbreak investigations. The data reported through this surveillance system provides timely data on the causes of outbreaks, including environmental factors associated with outbreaks, which are essential to environmental public health regulators' efforts to respond more effectively to outbreaks and prevent future, similar outbreaks.

    NEARS was developed by the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net), a collaborative network of CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and local, state, territorial, and tribal food safety programs. NEARS is designed to link to CDC's National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS, under the National Disease Surveillance Program II—Disease Summaries; OMB Control No. 0920-0004; expiration date 10/31/2017), a disease outbreak surveillance system for enteric diseases transmitted by food.

    When linked, NEARS and NORS data provide opportunities to strengthen the robustness of outbreak data reported to CDC. The foodborne outbreak environmental assessment data reported to NEARS will be used to characterize data on food vehicles and monitor trends; identify contributing factors and their environmental antecedents; generate hypotheses, guide planning, and implementation; evaluate food safety programs, and ultimately assist to prevent future outbreaks. Collectively, these data play a vital role in improving the food safety system, strengthening the robustness of outbreak data reported to CDC.

    The first type of NEARS respondent is food safety program officials. Although not a requirement, food safety program personnel participating in NEARS will be encouraged to take two trainings: NEARS food safety program personnel training and NEARS e-learning. The former will train food safety personnel on identifying environmental factors, logging in and entering data into the web-based NEARS data entry system, and troubleshooting problems. The latter is an e-Learning course on how to use a systems approach in foodborne illness outbreak environmental assessments. It is suggested that respondents take this training one time, for a total of 10 hours.

    Next, for each outbreak, one official from each participating program will spend about one hour to make establishment observations, 30 minutes to record environmental assessment data and 30 minutes to report environmental assessment data into the NEARS web-based system. Officials will not report on their programs or personnel. Food safety programs are typically located in public health or agriculture agencies. There are approximately 3,000 such agencies in the United States.

    It is not possible to determine exactly how many outbreaks will occur in the future, nor where they will occur. However, based on existing data, we estimate a maximum of 1,400 foodborne illness outbreaks will occur annually. Only programs in the jurisdictions in which these outbreaks occur would voluntarily report to NEARS. Thus, not every program will respond every year. We assume each outbreak will occur in a different jurisdiction.

    The second type of NEARS respondent is managers of retail establishments. The manager interview will be conducted at each establishment associated with an outbreak. Most outbreaks are associated with only one establishment. We estimate that a maximum average of four managers at each establishment will be interviewed per outbreak. Each interview will take about 20 minutes.

    The total estimated annual burden is 20,067 hours, an increase of 14,000 hours over the previously approved 6,067. This increase in requested burden hours is due to the addition of the NEARS e-learning training opportunity. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Food safety program personnel NEARS Food Safety Program Training 1,400 1 2 2,800 NEARS e-Learning (screenshots) 1,400 1 10 14,000 NEARS Data Recording (paper form) 1,400 1 30/60 700 NEARS Data Reporting (web entry) 1,400 1 30/60 700 Retail food personnel NEARS Manager Interview 5,600 1 20/60 1,867 Total 20,067
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02175 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-0106; Docket No. CDC-2016-0017] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision of the information collection project entitled “Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant”.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0017 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulation.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note:

    All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant (OMB Control No. 0920-0106, exp. 8/31/2016)—Revision—Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The management of the Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant program has transitioned from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion to the Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS). The Program continues to provide awardees with a source of flexible funding for health promotion and disease prevention programs. Currently, 61 awardees (50 states, the District of Columbia, two American Indian Tribes, and eight U.S. territories) receive Block Grants to address locally-defined public health needs in innovative ways. Block Grants allow awardees to prioritize the use of funds and to fill funding gaps in programs that deal with the leading causes of death and disability. Block Grant funding also provides awardees with the ability to respond rapidly to emerging health issues, including outbreaks of diseases or pathogens. The PHHS Block Grant program is authorized by sections 1901-1907 of the Public Health Service Act.

    CDC currently collects information from Block Grant awardees to monitor their objectives and activities (Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, OMB No. 0920-0106, exp. 8/31/2016). Each awardee is required to submit an annual application for funding (Work Plan) that describes its objectives and the populations to be addressed, and an Annual Report that describes activities, progress toward objectives, and Success Stories which highlight the improvements Block Grant programs have made and the value of program activities. Information is submitted electronically through the web-based Block Grant Information Management System (BGMIS).

    CDC PHHS Block Grant program has benefited from this system by efficiently collecting mandated information in a format that allows data to be easily retrieved in standardized reports. The electronic format verifies completeness of data at data entry prior to submission to CDC, reducing the number of re-submissions that are required to provide concise and complete information.

    The Work Plan and Annual Report are designed to help Block Grant awardees attain their goals and to meet reporting requirements specified in the program's authorizing legislation. Each Work Plan objective is defined in SMART format (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-based), and includes a specified start date and end date. Block Grant activities adhere to the Healthy People (HP) framework established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The current version of the BGMIS associates each awardee-defined activity with a specific HP National Objective, and identifies the location where funds are applied. Although there are no substantive changes to the information collected (Attachment 4A), the Work Plan guidance document for users (Attachments 4B) has been updated to improve their usability and the clarity of instructions provided to BGMIS users. These changes are summarized in Attachments 4C.

    There are no changes to the number of Block Grant awardees (respondents), or the estimated burden per response for the Work Plan or the Annual Report. At this time, the BGMIS does not collect data related to performance measures, but a future information collection request may outline additional reporting requirements related to performance measures.

    The PHHS Block Grant program must continue to collect data in order to remain in compliance with legislative mandates. The system allows CDC and Grantees to measure performance, identifying the extent to which objectives were met and identifying the most highly successful program interventions. CDC requests OMB approval to continue the Block Grant information collection for three years. CDC will continue to use the BGMIS to monitor awardee progress, identify activities and personnel supported with Block Grant funding, conduct compliance reviews of Block Grant awardees, and promote the use of evidence-based guidelines and interventions. There are no changes to the number of respondents or the estimated annual burden per respondent. The Work Plan and the Annual Report will be submitted annually. The estimated burden per response for the Work Plan is 20 hours and the estimated burden per response for the Annual Report is 15 hours.

    Participation in this information collection is required for Block Grant awardees. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. Awardees continue to submit Success Stories with their Annual Progress reports through BGMIS, without changes.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Block Grant Awardees Work Plan 61 1 20 1,220 Annual Report 61 1 15 915 Total 2,135
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02174 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10406 and CMS-10599] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number__, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-10406 Medicare Probable Fraud Measurement Pilot; CMS-10599 Medicare Prior Authorization of Home Health Services Demonstration

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Probable Fraud Measurement Pilot; Use: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the collections required for a probable fraud measurement pilot. The probable fraud measurement pilot would establish a baseline estimate of probable fraud in payments for home health care services in the fee-for-service Medicare program. CMS and its agents will collect information from home health agencies, the referring physicians and Medicare beneficiaries selected in a national random sample of home health claims. The pilot will rely on the information collected along with a summary of the service history of the HHA, the referring provider, and the beneficiary to estimate the percentage of total payments that are associated with probable fraud and the percentage of all claims that are associated with probable fraud for Medicare fee-for-service home health. Form Number: CMS-10406 (OMB Control Number 0938-1192); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Individual and Private Sector (Business or other for-profits); Number of Respondents: 6,000; Total Annual Responses: 6,000; Total Annual Hours: 7,500. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Cecelia Franco at (786) 313-0737).

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: New Collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Prior Authorization of Home Health Services Demonstration; Use: Section 402(a)(1)(J) of the Social Security Amendments of 1967 (42 U.S.C. 1395b-1(a)(1)(J)) authorizes the Secretary to “develop or demonstrate improved methods for the investigation and prosecution of fraud in the provision of care or services under the health programs established by the Social Security Act (the Act).” In accordance with this authority, we seek to develop and implement a Medicare demonstration project, which we believe will help assist in developing improved procedures for the identification, investigation, and prosecution of Medicare fraud occurring among HHAs providing services to Medicare beneficiaries.

    This demonstration would help assure that payments for home health services are appropriate before the claims are paid, thereby preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. As part of this demonstration, we propose performing prior authorization before processing claims for home health services in: Florida, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, and Massachusetts. We would establish a prior authorization procedure that is similar to the Prior Authorization of Power Mobility Device (PMD) Demonstration, which was implemented by CMS in 2012. This demonstration would also follow and adopt prior authorization processes that currently exist in other health care programs such as TRICARE, certain state Medicaid programs, and in private insurance.

    The information required under this collection is requested by Medicare contractors to determine proper payment or if there is a suspicion of fraud. Medicare contractors will request the information from HHA providers submitting claims for payment from the Medicare program in advance to determine appropriate payment. Form Number: CMS-10599 (OMB Control Number: 0938-NEW); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits); Number of Respondents: 908,740; Number of Responses: 1; Total Annual Hours: 454,370. (For questions regarding this collection contact Carla David (410) 786-4799.)

    Dated: February 2, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02277 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-10596, CMS-906, CMS-1771, CMS-1450, CMS-1500 (02-12)] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions:

    OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected]

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Reapplication Submission Requirement for Qualified Entities under ACA Section 10332; Use: Section 10332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires the Secretary to make standardized extracts of Medicare claims data under Parts A, B, and D available to “qualified entities” for the evaluation of the performance of providers of services and suppliers. The statute provides the Secretary with discretion to establish criteria to determine whether an entity is qualified to use claims data to evaluate the performance of providers of services and suppliers. After consideration of comments from a wide variety of stakeholders during the public comment period, CMS established “Medicare Program; Availability of Medicare Data for Performance Measurement” (hereinafter called the Final Rule and referred to as the Medicare Data Sharing Program). It was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2011 (42 CFR, Part 401, Subpart G). To implement the requirements outlined in the legislation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established the Qualified Entity Certification Program (QECP). The Qualified Entity Certification Program (QECP) was established to implement the Final Rule. One of the requirements in the Final Rule is that QEs must reapply for certification six months prior to the end of their 3-year certification period to remain in good standing. This form is the official reapplication that QEs must complete to reapply to the QECP. Form Number: CMS-10596 (OMB Control Number: 0938—New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 10; Total Annual Responses: 10; Total Annual Hours: 1,200. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kari Gaare at 410-786-8612.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: The Fiscal Soundness Reporting Requirements; Use: The CMS is assigned responsibility for overseeing all Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs), Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) sponsors and PACE organizations on-going financial performance. Specifically, CMS needs the requested collection of information to establish that contracting entities within those programs maintain fiscally sound organizations and thereby remain a going concern. All contracting organizations must submit annual independently audited financial statements one time per year. The MAOs with a negative net worth and/or a net loss and the amount of that loss is greater than one-half of the organization's total net worth must file three quarterly financial statements. Currently, there are approximately 71 MAOs filing quarterly financial statements. Part D organizations must also 3 quarterly financial statements. The PACE organizations are required to file 4 quarterly financial statements for the first three years in the program as well as PACE organizations with a negative net worth and/or a net loss and the amount of that loss is greater than one-half of the organization's total net worth. Form Number: CMS-906 (OMB control number: 0938-0469); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 815; Total Annual Responses: 1,518; Total Annual Hours: 506. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Geralyn Glenn at 410-786-0973.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Emergency and Foreign Hospital Services; Use: Section 1866 of the Social Security Act states that any provider of services shall be qualified to participate in the Medicare program and shall be eligible for payments under Medicare if it files an agreement with the Secretary to meet the conditions outlined in this section of the Act. Section 1814 (d)(1) of the Social Security Act and 42 CFR 424.100, allows payment of Medicare benefits for a Medicare beneficiary to a nonparticipating hospital that does not have an agreement in effect with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These payments can be made if such services were emergency services and if CMS would be required to make the payment if the hospital had an agreement in effect and met the conditions of payment. This form is used in connection with claims for emergency hospital services provided by hospitals that do not have an agreement in effect under Section 1866 of the Social Security Act. As specified in 42 CFR 424.103(b), before a non-participating hospital may be paid for emergency services rendered to a Medicare beneficiary, a statement must be submitted that is sufficiently comprehensive to support that an emergency existed. Form CMS-1771 contains a series of questions relating to the medical necessity of the emergency. The attending physician must attest that the hospitalization was required under the regulatory emergency definition and give clinical documentation to support the claim. A photocopy of the beneficiary's hospital records may be used in lieu of the CMS-1771 if the records contain all the information required by the form. Form Number: CMS-1771 (OMB control number: 0938-0023); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 100; Total Annual Responses: 200; Total Annual Hours: 50. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shauntari Cheely at 410-786-1818.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Uniform Institutional Provider Bill and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 424.5; Use: Section 42 CFR 424.5(a)(5) requires providers of services to submit a claim for payment prior to any Medicare reimbursement. Charges billed are coded by revenue codes. The bill specifies diagnoses according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9-CM) code. Inpatient procedures are identified by ICD-9-CM codes, and outpatient procedures are described using the CMS Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS). These are standard systems of identification for all major health insurance claims payers. Submission of information on the CMS-1450 permits Medicare intermediaries to receive consistent data for proper payment. Form Numbers: CMS-1450 (UB-04) (OMB control number: 0938-0997); Frequency: On occasion; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 53,111; Total Annual Responses: 181,909,654; Total Annual Hours: 1,567,455. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Matt Klischer at 410-786-7488.)

    5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Health Insurance Common Claims Form and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR part 424, subpart C; Use: The Form CMS-1500 answers the needs of many health insurers. It is the basic form prescribed by CMS for the Medicare program for claims from physicians and suppliers. The Medicaid State Agencies, CHAMPUS/TriCare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and several private health plans also use it; it is the de facto standard “professional” claim form. Medicare carriers use the data collected on the CMS-1500 and the CMS-1490S to determine the proper amount of reimbursement for Part B medical and other health services (as listed in section 1861(s) of the Social Security Act) provided by physicians and suppliers to beneficiaries. The CMS-1500 is submitted by physicians/suppliers for all Part B Medicare. Serving as a common claim form, the CMS-1500 can be used by other third-party payers (commercial and nonprofit health insurers) and other Federal programs (e.g., CHAMPUS/TriCare, Railroad Retirement Board (RRB), and Medicaid). However, as the CMS-1500 displays data items required for other third-party payers in addition to Medicare, the form is considered too complex for use by beneficiaries when they file their own claims. Therefore, the CMS-1490S (Patient's Request for Medicare Payment) was explicitly developed for easy use by beneficiaries who file their own claims. The form can be obtained from any Social Security office or Medicare carrier. Form Number: CMS-1500(02-12), CMS-1490S (OMB control number: 0938-1197) Frequency: On occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments, Private sector (Business or other-for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 1,448,346; Total Annual Responses: 988,005,045; Total Annual Hours: 21,418,336. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Shannon Seales at 410-786-4089.)

    Dated: February 2, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02278 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on December 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

    2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

    a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

    b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 11C-26, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Sandra Malone, Germantown, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1439V. 2. Robert Petrillo, Revere, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1441V. 3. Nikysha Cyrus on behalf of Jayden A. Baker, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1442V. 4. Robert Niziol on behalf of S. N., Tenafly, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1446V. 5. Karen Green, Alameda, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1447V. 6. Ruth Major, Linwood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1449V. 7. Jamie Edwardson, Ketchikan, Alaska, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1450V. 8. Steven McKown and Tabitha McKown on behalf of C. M., Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1451V. 9. Leroy Albert Weinreich, Towson, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1454V. 10. Stephanie Dimasi, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1455V. 11. Olga Galvis, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1456V. 12. Jason Johnson, Rock Island, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1457V. 13. Tara Evans on behalf of B. E., Pagosa Springs, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1458V. 14. Jennifer Hinkley on behalf of Charles Tuttle, Deceased, Richmond, Maine, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1459V. 15. Teresa Dianne Perdue on behalf of Robert Carlyle Perdue, Jr., Deceased, Boones Mill, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1460V. 16. Odolphone Nored, Greenwood, Mississippi, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1461V. 17. Betsy Redfern, Boulder, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1462V. 18. Marilyn Wenker, Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1463V. 19. Jane Tougas, Marion, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1464V. 20. Michelle Dalton on behalf of A. D., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1465V. 21. Sarah Morris on behalf of G. M., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1466V. 22. Kiasha Leitch on behalf of N. W., Brooklyn, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1467V. 23. Kristal Grigg on behalf of N. G., Linwood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1468V. 24. Susan Boyer, Merr, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1469V. 25. Andrea Fuller on behalf of B. F., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1470V. 26. Jennifer Leedy, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1471V. 27. Shelly Plescia, Fountain Valley, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1472V. 28. Janet Cakir on behalf of C. A. C., Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1474V. 29. Laurie Simmon, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1475V. 30. Daryl Dawsonia, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1476V. 31. Diane C. Perl, Hamburg, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1477V. 32. Lou Ann Boersch, East Aurora, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1480V. 33. Adam Caselles and Lisa Caselles on behalf of N. A. C., Mission Viejo, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1481V. 34. Robert Lovejoy, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1484V. 35. Bettina McGill, Durham, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1485V. 36. Andrew Potts, West Chester, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1487V. 37. Richard Hesse, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1488V. 38. Matt Nichols, Fortville, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1490V. 39. Phyllis Weir, Fairview, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1491V. 40. Jane M. Stuart, Livonia, Michigan, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1493V. 41. Carla Shiel and Mathew Shiel on behalf of Zara Antoinette Shiel, Deceased, Henderson, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1496V. 42. Scott Marshall and Amy Marshall on behalf of H. M., Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1497V. 43. Candace M Thompson and Stephen E. Powell on behalf of A. H. P., Ocean City, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1498V. 44. Lee Patalowski, Lititz, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1499V. 45. Daniel Doherty, Long Island, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1500V. 46. Doris Levitzki, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1502V. 47. Ronald Belair, Bakersfield, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1503V. 48. Mario Reyes-Nieto, Riverside, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1504V. 49. Susan G. Webber, Woodstock, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1506V. 50. Monty Lowas, Manteca, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1507V. 51. Aileen Goner, Hallandale Beach, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1508V. 52. David Parker, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1512V. 53. Maxie Downs, Albertville, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1513V. 54. Bryant Thompson, Seward, Nebraska, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1514V. 55. Ian Brooks, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1515V. 56. Tonya Brock, Hixson, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1516V. 57. Edward Piotrowski, Itasca, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1517V. 58. Jamie J. Dyson, Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1518V. 59. Eric G. Craver, Greensboro, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1519V. 60. Tracy Mollica on behalf of A. M., Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1520V. 61. Heidi White and David White on behalf of A. C. W., Exeter, New Hampshire, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1521V. 62. Stacia Wright, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1523V. 63. Gary Harris, San Antonio, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1525V. 64. Abigail Sims and Daniel Sims on behalf of A. E. S., Deceased, Oxford, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1526V. 65. John Homick and Rachel Homick on behalf of Z. H., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1529V. 66. Diane Streck, Scottsboro, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1530V. 67. Carole Batson, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1531V. 68. Cathy Bruno on behalf of C B, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1537V. 69. Viola Bentley, Bethesda, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1540V. 70. Elizabeth Ann Gray, Gallatin, Tennessee, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1542V. 71. Olivia Rodriguez, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1543V. 72. Nancy Conley, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1544V. 73. David Merritt, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1545V. 74. Doris Steinbach, Athol, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1546V. 75. Bernadette Dicianni and Michael Szilagyi on behalf of D. S., Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1548V. 76. Mona Holtry, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1551V. 77. Karol Danner-Rieland, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1552V. 78. Sherri Harrod on behalf of Jonathan Patton, St. Petersburg, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1553V. 79. John Cogliandro, Woburn, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1557V. 80. Marcus C. Turner, Austin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1561V. 81. David Landis, Cary, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1562V. 82. Vanessa Wood on behalf of A. W., Fort Dodge, Iowa, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1568V. 83. Glenda Ivy, Fredericksburg, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1569V. 84. Kimberly Bertolucci and Arthur Joseph McCauley, III on behalf of E. M., Napa, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1573V. 85. Carmen James on behalf of A J, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1576V. 86. Hope Doucet on behalf of A. C., Deceased, Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1577V. 87. Michael DeAngelo, Laughlin, Nevada, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1578V. 88. Laura McKenna, Abington, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1580V. 89. Stephen Lesicko, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1581V. 90. Donna Soderman, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1582V. 91. Gerry Ramey, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1585V. 92. Stacey Nash, Oakland, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1587V. 93. Evelyn Bell, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1588V. 94. Melvin Craig, Sarasota, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 15-1590V.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02245 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health; Correction AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Minority Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health (ACMH) scheduled for January 28 and 29, 2016, is cancelled due to inclement weather. This meeting will be rescheduled at a future date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Minh Wendt, Designated Federal Officer, ACMH; Tower Building, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Phone: 240-453-8222. Fax: 240-453-8223. Email: [email protected]

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 5, 2016, Vol. 81, No. 2, on pages 242-243 a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Health was announced. That meeting has been cancelled due to inclement weather.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Minh Wendt, Alternate Designated Federal officer, ACMH, Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02246 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-29-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Omnibus SEP-7 R03 & R21.

    Date: March 21-22, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites/Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Yisong Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Special Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W240, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-7157, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI R01 Review.

    Date: March 23, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Caron A. Lyman, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W126, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-6348, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Provocative Questions Review—PQ 1.

    Date: April 8, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W618, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sanita Bharti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Research Program Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 7W618, Bethesda, MD 20892-9750, 240-276-5909, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Smoking Cessation within the Context of Lung Cancer Screening.

    Date: April 12, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Scott A. Chen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W604, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6038, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Immuno-Diagnostics.

    Date: May 4, 2016.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W556, Rockville, MD 20850 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Bratin K. Saha, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Program Coordination and Referral Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W556, Rockville, MD 20850, 240-276-6411, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/sep/sep.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 1, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02186 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories Study (NIEHS) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50298) and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), NIH may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project contact: Dr. Kristina Thayer, Director of the Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop K2-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, or call non-toll-free number (919) 541-5021, or Email your request, including your address, to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional information must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: National Toxicology Program (NTP) Level of Concern Categories, 0925-NEW, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: The NTP has used a 5-point level of concern (LoC) framework to communicate NTP's assessment of the degree of concern regarding the potential human health effects of selected substances given what is known about their toxicity, level of human exposure, and pharmacokinetics. As part of its systematic review methodologies, the NTP is updating its LoC framework to enhance transparency in what the LoC categories mean, describing the factors considered in reaching conclusions and identifying strategies for improving their use as a risk communication tool. This study will use expert solicitation from five NTP stakeholder sectors (academia, industry, non-government organizations, and federal and state agencies) to aid in determining the optimal number of LoC categories for an updated LoC framework. Information about this project was presented to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors on June 16, 2015. Materials describing the project, including slides and summary minutes from the meeting, are available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/9741.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 620.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual burden hour
    Study Consent Experts 200 1 6/60 20 LoC “Cards” Experts 200 2 90/60 600 Total 200 600 620
    Dated: January 28, 2016. Jane M. Lambert, Project Clearance Liaison, NIEHS, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02266 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

    Date: February 28-March 1, 2016.

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Alan P. Koretsky, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 35 Convent Drive, Room 6A 908, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2232, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS).
    Dated: January 29, 2016. Sylvia Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02182 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; NIMH Bio-Behavioral Research Awards for Innovative New Scientists (NIMH BRAINS).

    Date: February 29, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Megan Kinnane, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6148, MSC 9609, Rockville, MD 20852-9609, 301-402-6807, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowships and Dissertation Grants.

    Date: February 29, 2016.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Marcy Ellen Burstein, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6143, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-9699, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel; Dimensional Approaches to Research Classification in Psychiatric Disorders (RDoC).

    Date: March 1, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Rebecca Steiner Garcia, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6149, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-4525, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 1, 2016. Carolyn A. Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02183 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Consumer Health Information in Public Libraries User Needs Survey (NLM) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2015, page 66914 and allowed 60-days for public comment. One public comment was received. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments or request more information on the proposed project contact: David Sharlip, Office of Administrative and Management Analysis Services,, National Library of Medicine, Building 38A, Room B2N12, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or call non-toll-free number (301) 402-9680, or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Proposed Collection: Consumer Health Information in Public Libraries User Needs Survey (NLM)), 0925-New, National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: In 1994, the NLM was designated a “Federal Reinvention Laboratory” with a major objective of improving its methods of delivering information to the public.

    NLM has become an international leader in health informatics research and development, especially in consumer health informatics. As a result, NLM needs to remain contemporary in consumer health informatics research by utilizing research methods that yield a better understanding of the predictors of consumer satisfaction. Without ongoing insights into the predictors of consumer satisfaction, NLM will lack the research findings to make evidence-based changes in the content, design and editorial management of its consumer Web sites and will not optimally serve the public.

    Public libraries have been identified as a key resource for public information about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which took full effect on October 1, 2013. A national anonymous survey of library staff will help us better understand the challenges and successes of information provision in this critical area of high information need. Research and funding into the challenges of health information in public libraries is, at present, almost nonexistent. In the present environment of health insurance reform and presumption of informed consumer choice, this is a critical knowledge gap. Information collection from library workers will supply much-needed feedback on the specific areas of challenge for information provision by public libraries. The results of this study will be used by the Principal Investigators' home institutions—the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an institution of higher education preparing future library workers, and the Specialized Information Services division of the National Library of Medicine—to inform preparation of outreach and training materials as well as advising other organizations and institutions providing PPACA information provision assistance to public libraries (e.g., American Library Association). To improve our understanding of the challenges and gaps in information provision and awareness around PPACA, the information we get from this survey will be used to inform and improve NLM's services to public libraries, as well as increase our understanding of the resource and education needs of public library workers.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 390.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average time per response
  • (minutes/hours)
  • Total
  • annual
  • burden hour
  • Library workers 779 1 30/60 390 Total 779 390
    Dated: January 28, 2016. David Sharlip, Project Clearance Liaison, NLM, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02181 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee, March 09, 2016, 11:00 a.m. to March 09, 2016, 01:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 which was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016, 81 FR 4321.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the location of the meeting from the National Cancer Institute, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850 to the National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20892, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Room 10. The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02187 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Oral Dental and Craniofacial Sciences.

    Date: February 24, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Baljit S. Moonga, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4214, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1777, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR-15-020: Systems Developmental Biology for Understanding Embryonic Development and the Ontogeny of Structural Birth Defects.

    Date: February 29-March 1, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Thomas Beres, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr. Rm. 5201, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1175, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR13-185: Image Guided Drug Delivery in Cancer.

    Date: March 2, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda (Formerly Holiday Inn Select), 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Mehrdad Mohseni, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0484, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Fellowships: Neurodevelopment, Synaptic Plasticity and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: March 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Westgate Hotel, 1055 2nd Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101.

    Contact Person: Mary Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-0996, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Fellowships: Learning, Memory, Language, Communication and Related Neurosciences.

    Date: March 3-4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Washington Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    Contact Person: Mary G. Schueler, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5214, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-915-6301, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Surgical Sciences and Bioengineering.

    Date: March 3, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John Firrell, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5118, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-2598, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: Extracellular Vesicles and Substance Abuse.

    Date: March 4, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Jasenka Borzan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 4214 MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892-7814, 301-435-1787, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: NIDDK Translational Research.

    Date: March 4, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John Bleasdale, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6170, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-4514, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 1, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02188 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council was renewed for an additional two-year period on February 7, 2016.

    It is determined that the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Advisory Council is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

    Inquiries may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or [email protected].

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02185 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Cancellation of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 24, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to February 24, 2016, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2016, 81 FR 4318.

    The meeting is cancelled due to the reassignment of applications.

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02184 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2015-0909] Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0039 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0039, Declaration of Inspection Before Transfer of Liquid in Bulk. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

    DATES:

    Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2015-0909] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:

    (1) Email: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    (3) Fax: 202-395-6566. To ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.

    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from: Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., STOP 7710, Washington, DC 20593-7710.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.

    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.

    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request, [USCG-2015-0909], and must be received by March 7, 2016.

    Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0039.

    Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 64429, October 23, 2015) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

    Information Collection Request

    1. Title: Declaration of Inspection Before Transfer of Liquid in Bulk.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0039.

    Summary: A Declaration of Inspection (DOI) documents the transfer of oil and hazardous materials, to help prevent spills and damage to a facility or vessel. Persons-in-charge of the transfer operations must review and certify compliance with procedures specified by the terms of the DOI.

    Need: Title 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) authorizes the Coast Guard to establish regulations to prevent the discharge of oil and hazardous material from vessels and facilities. The DOI regulations appear at 33 CFR 156.150 and 46 CFR 35.35-30.

    Forms: N/A.

    Respondents: Persons-in-charge of transfers.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 62,514 hours to 77,973 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 26, 2016. Thomas P. Michelli, U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02279 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5851-N-03] Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)—Alternative Requirements or Waivers: Alternative Requirements for Use of Public Housing Units for the San Francisco Housing Authority AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) statute gives HUD authority to establish waivers and alternative requirements. This notice advises that HUD is providing alternative requirements for statutory limits on the use of public housing units in response to plans submitted by the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) to preserve available affordable housing in its jurisdiction and use unoccupied public housing units to temporarily house former public housing families whose units are undergoing renovations.

    DATES:

    Effective date: February 16, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas R. Davis, Director of the Office of Recapitalization, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-0001 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access these numbers through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Background and Action

    The RAD statute (Pub. L. 112-55, approved November 18, 2011, as amended) gives HUD authority to waive or specify alternative requirements for, among other things, provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the 1937 Act). In order to utilize this authority, the RAD statute requires HUD to publish by notice in the Federal Register any waiver or alternative requirement no later than 10 days before the effective date of such notice. This notice meets this publication requirement.

    In November of 2015, the SFHA closed on transactions involving 14 public housing properties using a combination of RAD and Section 8. Plans for the 14 projects include in-place rehabilitation requiring temporary relocation of the 1,425 households. To accomplish this large-scale temporary relocation, the SFHA will utilize a number of relocation options. In addition to traditional relocation options, the SFHA has asked HUD for the ability to use, during rehabilitation after conversion, 58 public housing units as temporary relocation housing for former public housing residents of projects that receive assistance converted pursuant to RAD.

    Accordingly, HUD is specifying alternative requirements for sections 9(d)(3)(A) and (B) of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437g(d)(3)(A) and (B)). Subject to certain conditions that the SFHA has agreed to follow, HUD is allowing the SFHA to follow its stated relocation plans.

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing. Approved on January 21, 2016. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02172 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5907-N-06] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

    Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, and suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

    Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to: Ms. Theresa M. Ritta, Chief Real Property Branch, the Department of Health and Human Services, Room 5B-17, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

    For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

    For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

    Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Ann Marie Oliva at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register, the landholding agency, and the property number.

    For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: AGRICULTURE: Ms. Debra Kerr, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street SW., Room 300, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 720-8873; COE: Mr. Scott Whiteford, Army Corps of Engineers, Real Estate, CEMP-CR, 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314; (202) 761-5542; ENERGY: Mr. David Steinau, Department of Energy, Office of Property Management, OECM MA-50, 4B122, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585 (202) 287-1503; GSA: Mr. Flavio Peres, General Services Administration, Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal, 1800 F Street NW., Room 7040, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-0084; NAVY: Mr. Steve Matteo, Department of the Navy, Asset Management; Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1330 Patterson Ave. SW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374; (202) 685-9426; (These are not toll-free numbers).

    Dated: January 28, 2016. Tonya Proctor, Deputy Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. TITLE V, FEDERAL SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM, FEDERAL REGISTER REPORT FOR 02/05/2016 Suitable/Available Properties Building Arkansas Prairie Creek Park Picnic Shelters; 9300 N. Park Rd. Beaver Lake Project Rogers AR 72756 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201610001 Status: Underutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; used seasonal; 600 sq. ft.; roof need repairs; contact COE for more information. Waveland Park, Vault Toilet BLUMTN-43365 Blue Mountain Lake Havana AR 72842 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201610002 Status: Underutilized Comments: 10′8″x24′; 3+ months vacant; substantial repairs needed; contact COE for more information. California Kernville Work Center I.D. #1013 Kernville Residence (Duplex); 11380 Kernville Rd. Kernville CA 93238 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610001 Status: Underutilized Comments: off-site removal only; 2,224 sq. ft.; removal difficult due to size/type; 50% vacant; available 30 days after application approved by HHS; fair conditions; contact Agriculture for more info. Illinois Federal Bldg. & Courthouse 201 N. Vermillion St. Danville IL 61832 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201610003 Status: Excess GSA Number: 1-G-IL-810 Comments: 67,845 sq. ft.; office & courthouse; good condition; asbestos and LBPs identified; remediation needed; contact GSA for more information. Oklahoma 03.50716 621700B023 Entomology Headhouse (USDA/ARS) 07334  Plant Science & Water Conserv. Research Stillwater OK 74075 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610002 Status: Unutilized Directions: Located off west Virginia Ave. Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal difficult due to size/type; 3,000 sq. ft.; good conditions; contact Agriculture for more info. 03.50715 621700B022 Entomology Greenhouse (USDA/ARS) 07334 Plant Science & Water Conserv. Stillwater OK 74075 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610003 Status: Unutilized Directions: Located off west Virginia Ave. Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; 500 sq. ft.; good conditions; contact Agriculture for more info. 03.50710 621700B014 Storage 14 (USDA/ARS) 07334 Plant Science & Water Conserv. Stillwater OK 74075 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610004 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; removal difficult due to type/size; no future agency need; 2,976 sq. ft.; warehouse; very good conditions but no potable water; contact Agriculture for more info. 03.50713 621700B019 Storage Entomology (USDA/ARS) 07334 Plant Science & Water Conserv. Stillwater OK 74075 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610005 Status: Unutilized Comments: off-site removal only; no future agency need; removal difficult due to type/size; 1,440 sq. ft.; fair conditions; contact Agriculture for more info. Land Florida Former Outer Maker Site 105th Ave. North Royal Palm Beach FL 33411 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201610001 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 4-U-FL_1332AA Directions: Landholding Agency: FAA; Disposal Agency: GSA Comments: 0.92 acres; contact GSA for more information. Former Radio Communication Receiver Site SW Kanner Hwy Martin FL 34956 Landholding Agency: GSA Property Number: 54201610002 Status: Surplus GSA Number: 4-U-FL-1321 Directions: Landholding Agency: FAA; Disposal Agency: GSA Comments: 1.06 acres; contact GSA for more information. Unsuitable Properties Building Arkansas 44915 Nimrod—Blue Mountain Project Office Plainview AR 72857 Landholding Agency: COE Property Number: 31201610003 Status: Underutilized Comments: documented deficiencies: submerged underwater for several months; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration California Seiad Oaks Residence Garage NRM Bldg. ID 4916002; RPUID:96086 1061.003771 1205 Seiad Oaks Rd. Seiad Valley CA 96086 Landholding Agency: Agriculture Property Number: 15201610006 Status: Underutilized Comments: documented deficiencies: dilapidated; must be removed; however, most likely will collapse if relocation attempted; clear threat to physical safety. Reasons: Extensive deterioration Florida 3862 Naval Air Station Pensacola FL 32508 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610004 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 3578 Naval Air Station Pensacola FL 32508 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610005 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area 1518 Naval Air Station Pensacola FL 32508 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610006 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Hawaii 2 Buildings Marine Corps Base Camp Smith HI 96861 Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610018 Status: Excess Directions: 69; 70 Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Mississippi Facility Number 361-Applied Facility Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610007 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 399 San Blast Facility Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610008 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 328 Naval Lodge Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610009 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 190B Magazine Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610010 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area. Facility Number 190C Magazine Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610011 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 190D Magazine Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610012 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 190E Magazine Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport MS Landholding Agency: Navy Property Number: 77201610013 Status: Unutilized Comments: public access denied and no alternative method to gain access without compromising national security. Reasons: Secured Area Facility Number 190F Magazine Naval Construction Battalion Center