Federal Register Vol. 81, No.29,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 29 (February 12, 2016)

Page Range7441-7693
FR Document

81_FR_29
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 7691 - Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2017 Pursuant to Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 7685 - Establishment of the Federal Privacy CouncilPDF
81 FR 7587 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 7542 - Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Updated List of Reserve-Eligible Nationwide Service Providers in Each PEA for the Broadcast Incentive AuctionPDF
81 FR 7493 - Trade Monitoring Procedures for Fishery Products; International Trade in Seafood; Permit Requirements for Importers and Exporters; Public Meeting; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 7441 - Commission on Enhancing National CybersecurityPDF
81 FR 7504 - Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of ChinaPDF
81 FR 7500 - Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 7503 - Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 7502 - Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 7500 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 279-Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C. (Shipbuilding); Houma, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 7499 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 7454 - Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 7556 - Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 7553 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, Llc, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 7536 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Request (ICR) for On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program; EPA ICR Number 2535.01, OMB Control Number-2060-NEWPDF
81 FR 7466 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance YearPDF
81 FR 7555 - Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 7455 - Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical SubstancesPDF
81 FR 7554 - Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, As a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 7499 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7510 - Procurement List, Proposed Additions And DeletionPDF
81 FR 7566 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form I-129CW; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.PDF
81 FR 7510 - Procurement List AdditionPDF
81 FR 7508 - Procurement List Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 7511 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment BodiesPDF
81 FR 7526 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7538 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 7588 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Manufacturers of Ammunition, Records and Supporting Data of Ammunition Manufactured and Disposed ofPDF
81 FR 7590 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; ATF Distribution Center Survey (ATF F 1370.4)PDF
81 FR 7594 - National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC)PDF
81 FR 7507 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 7542 - Order Declares ACT Telecommunications, Inc.'s International Section 214 Authorization TerminatedPDF
81 FR 7625 - Arkansas Disaster #AR-00086PDF
81 FR 7624 - Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00098PDF
81 FR 7624 - Arkansas Disaster # AR-00087PDF
81 FR 7623 - Michigan Disaster #MI-00054 Declaration of Economic InjuryPDF
81 FR 7497 - Request for Public Engagement in the Interagency Special Report `2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR-2)'PDF
81 FR 7533 - Idaho Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 7535 - Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 7534 - Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. v. ISO New England, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
81 FR 7535 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 7534 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 7537 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 7539 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Proposed Information Collection Request; Landfill Methane Outreach Program (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 7538 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Revision)PDF
81 FR 7528 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7583 - Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact (Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota)PDF
81 FR 7565 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 7585 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 7567 - Additional Clarifying Guidance, Waivers and Alternative Requirements for Grantees in Receipt of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Under Public Law 113-2 for the Submission of Expenditure Deadline Extension Requests and Urgent Need Certification Extensions and for the Provision of Interim Mortgage Assistance by the State of New YorkPDF
81 FR 7557 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 7561 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 7588 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; FFL Out of Business Records Request (ATF F 5300.3A)PDF
81 FR 7559 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 7558 - Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for Recommending a Cost Share AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 7563 - Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 7543 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 7513 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7507 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationPDF
81 FR 7625 - Wisconsin Central Ltd.-Trackage Rights Exemption-Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Company and Illinois Central Railroad CompanyPDF
81 FR 7540 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
81 FR 7541 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
81 FR 7477 - Broadcast Licensee-Conducted ContestsPDF
81 FR 7491 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
81 FR 7589 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Voluntary Magazine Questionnaire for Agencies/Entities Who Store Explosive MaterialsPDF
81 FR 7587 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; Revised Schedule for the Subject ReviewsPDF
81 FR 7626 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Farruggio's Express, Application for ExemptionPDF
81 FR 7571 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 76 Species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and IdahoPDF
81 FR 7583 - National Geospatial Advisory Committee; Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 7628 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7524 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7552 - Policy Letter: Guidance for Training of Deck Officers on Vessels Subject to the International Code for Ships Operating in the Polar WatersPDF
81 FR 7549 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Prescription Drug User Fee Act ProductsPDF
81 FR 7544 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Manufactured Food Regulatory Program StandardsPDF
81 FR 7547 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing; Influenza Virus NeuramindasePDF
81 FR 7593 - Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; MeetingPDF
81 FR 7593 - NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 7445 - Removal of Review and Reclassification Procedures for Biological Products Licensed Prior to July 1, 1972PDF
81 FR 7630 - West Los Angeles VA Medical Center; Draft Master PlanPDF
81 FR 7546 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Request for Samples and ProtocolsPDF
81 FR 7548 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial DistributionPDF
81 FR 7547 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug AdministrationPDF
81 FR 7543 - Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Used in Orthopedic Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 7452 - Medical Devices; General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Scalp Cooling System To Reduce the Likelihood of Chemotherapy-Induced AlopeciaPDF
81 FR 7548 - Annual Computational Science Symposium; ConferencePDF
81 FR 7446 - Anesthesiology Devices; Reclassification of Membrane Lung for Long-Term Pulmonary Support; Redesignation as Extracorporeal Circuit and Accessories for Long-Term Respiratory/Cardiopulmonary FailurePDF
81 FR 7623 - Florida Disaster #FL-00110PDF
81 FR 7623 - Florida Disaster #FL-00111PDF
81 FR 7624 - Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
81 FR 7563 - Infrastructure Protection Gateway Facility SurveysPDF
81 FR 7569 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest RatesPDF
81 FR 7584 - Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same; Notice of Commission Determination To Review an Initial Determination Granting in Part a Motion for Default and Other Relief and, on Review, To Affirm the Default Finding; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions on the Issues Under Review and on Remedy, Public Interest, and BondingPDF
81 FR 7594 - NASA Advisory Council; Science Committee; Meeting.PDF
81 FR 7582 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7522 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7587 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Noramco, Inc.PDF
81 FR 7516 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7512 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7506 - Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure CybersecurityPDF
81 FR 7592 - Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health Charter Amendment.PDF
81 FR 7546 - Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 7595 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 7596 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 7549 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 7550 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 7552 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 7550 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 7551 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 7550 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 7520 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7489 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
81 FR 7489 - Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
81 FR 7483 - Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Removal of I/M Program in Memphis and Revisions to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, TennesseePDF
81 FR 7494 - Pacific Island Fisheries; Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Revised Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular ConcernPDF
81 FR 7518 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 7609 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating To Adopting a Principles-Based Approach To Prohibit the Misuse of Material Nonpublic Information by Designated Primary Market-Makers (“DPMs”) and Lead Market-Makers (“LMMs”)PDF
81 FR 7620 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Include NextShares in the Lead Market Maker ProgramPDF
81 FR 7613 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Certain Asia-Pacific Credit Default Swap ContractsPDF
81 FR 7599 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares of the SPDR DoubleLine Short Term Total Return Tactical ETF of the SSgA Active TrustPDF
81 FR 7597 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Retroactively Apply Recently-Reduced Port FeesPDF
81 FR 7618 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Obsolete Rules 1000C-1009CPDF
81 FR 7595 - Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978PDF
81 FR 7619 - State Farm Associates' Funds Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 7596 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7616 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 7463 - Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; West VirginiaPDF
81 FR 7591 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act Delivery Sale Information Form-Schedule B (ATF Form 5200.26)PDF
81 FR 7590 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Tobacco Inventory Report (ATF Form 5200.25)PDF
81 FR 7592 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Reporting and Recordkeeping for Digital CertificatesPDF
81 FR 7466 - Diflubenzuron; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 7473 - Benzyl acetate; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
81 FR 7481 - Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MDPDF
81 FR 7454 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
81 FR 7532 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 7530 - State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)PDF
81 FR 7531 - Electricity Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 7653 - Medicare Program; Reporting and Returning of OverpaymentsPDF
81 FR 7492 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for RulemakingPDF
81 FR 7478 - Agriculture Acquisition Regulation, Fire Suppression and LiabilityPDF
81 FR 7573 - Endangered Species; Issuance of PermitsPDF
81 FR 7631 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 7564 - Agency Information Collection Activities: H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification, No Form; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF

Issue

81 29 Friday, February 12, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

See

Rural Utilities Service

RULES Agriculture Acquisition Regulation, Fire Suppression and Liability, 7478-7480 2016-02745
Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Reporting and Returning of Overpayments, 7654-7684 2016-02789 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 7499-7500 2016-02992 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD, 7481-7483 2016-02814 NOTICES Policy Letters: Guidance for Training of Deck Officers on Vessels Subject to the International Code for Ships Operating in the Polar Waters, 7552-7553 2016-02890 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions, 7510 2016-02941 Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 7508-7510 2016-02940 Proposed Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List, 7510-7511 2016-02943 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 7511-7512 2016-02939 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7512-7513 2016-02861 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Arms Sales, 7513-7520, 7522-7530 2016-02842 2016-02862 2016-02865 2016-02891 2016-02905 2016-02918 2016-02938 Arms Sales Notification, 7520-7522 2016-02847 Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Applications: Noramco, Inc., Athens, GA, 7587-7588 2016-02863 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Information Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Meetings: Electricity Advisory Committee, 7531-7532 2016-02793 State Energy Advisory Board, 7530-7531 2016-02796
Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 7532-7533 2016-02800 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances from New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year, 7466 2016-02955 Clean Air Act Operating Permit Programs: West Virginia; Revision, 7463-7465 2016-02831 Pesticide Tolerances: Diflubenzuron, 7466-7472 2016-02816 Requirements of a Tolerance; Exemptions: Benzyl acetate, 7473-7477 2016-02815 Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances, 7455-7463 2016-02952 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 7489 2016-02845 Idaho; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 7489-7491 2016-02846 Tennessee; Removal of I/M Program in Memphis and Revisions to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, TN, 7483-7489 2016-02844 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors, 7538-7539 2016-02919 Landfill Methane Outreach Program, 7539-7540 2016-02920 On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program, 7536-7537 2016-02956 Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program, 7537-7538 2016-02921 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 7538 2016-02937 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests, 7477-7478 2016-02900 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding, 7491-7492 2016-02899 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7540-7541 2016-02901 2016-02902 List of Reserve-Eligible Nationwide Service Providers in Each Partial Economic Area for the Broadcast Incentive Auction, 7542-7543 2016-03058 Order Declares ACT Telecommunications, Inc.'s International Section 214 Authorization Terminated, 7542 2016-02932 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for Recommending a Cost Share Adjustment, 7558-7559 2016-02908 Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations, 7559-7561 2016-02909 Major Disaster Declarations: Texas; Amendment No. 3, 7563 2016-02907 Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations, 7557-7558, 7561-7563 2016-02911 2016-02912 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 7534-7535 2016-02922 2016-02923 Complaints: Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. v. ISO New England, Inc., 7534-7535 2016-02924 Hydroelectric Applications: Idaho Power Company, 7533-7534 2016-02926 Southern California Edison Company, 7535-7536 2016-02925 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Farruggio's Express, 7626-7627 2016-02896 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7628-7629 2016-02892 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 7543 2016-02906 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 76 species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho, 7571-7573 2016-02895 Endangered Species Permits, 7573-7582 2016-02723 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Anesthesiology Devices: Reclassification of Membrane Lung for Long-Term Pulmonary Support; Redesignation as Extracorporeal Circuit and Accessories for Long-Term Respiratory/Cardiopulmonary Failure, 7446-7452 2016-02876 Medical Devices: General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Scalp Cooling System to Reduce the Likelihood of Chemotherapy-Induced Alopecia, 7452-7454 2016-02878 Removal of Review and Reclassification Procedures for Biological Products Licensed Prior to July 1, 1972, 7445-7446 2016-02884 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings with Sponsors and Applicants for Prescription Drug User Fee Act Products, 7549 2016-02889 Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, 7547 2016-02880 Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards, 7544-7546 2016-02888 Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution, 7548 2016-02881 Request for Samples and Protocols, 7546 2016-02882 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing: Influenza virus neuramindase, 7547-7548 2016-02887 Guidance: Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Used in Orthopedic Devices, 7543-7544 2016-02879 Meetings: Annual Computational Science Symposium; Public Conference, 7548-7549 2016-02877 Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee, 7546-7547 2016-02857 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C., Foreign-Trade Zone 279—Terrebonne Parish, LA, 7500 2016-02993 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7582-7583 2016-02867 Charter Renewals: National Geospatial Advisory Committee, 7583 2016-02893 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Infrastructure Protection Gateway Facility Surveys, 7563-7564 2016-02871
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 7632-7651 2016-02584 Guidance: Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery, 7567-7569 2016-02913 Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs under the National Housing Act: Debenture Interest Rates, 7569-7571 2016-02870 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Indian Gaming; Extension of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota, 7583-7584 2016-02917 Information Information Security Oversight Office NOTICES Meetings: National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee, 7594-7595 2016-02934 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico and the People's Republic of China, 7502 2016-02994 Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada, 7500-7502 2016-02996 Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China; Changed Circumstances Review, 7504-7506 2016-02997 Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Turkey, 7503-7504 2016-02995 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from China, India, Italy, Korea, and Taiwan, 7585-7587 2016-02914 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same, and Certain Products Containing Same, 7584-7585 2016-02869 Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, 7587 2016-02897 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 7587 2016-03096 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ATF Distribution Center Survey, ATF F 1370.4, 7590 2016-02935 Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act Delivery Sale Information Form—Schedule B, 7591-7592 2016-02819 FFL Out of Business Records Request, ATF F 5300.3A, 7588 2016-02910 Manufacturers of Ammunition, Records and Supporting Data of Ammunition Manufactured and Disposed Of, 7588-7589 2016-02936 Reporting and Recordkeeping for Digital Certificates, 7592 2016-02817 Tobacco Inventory Report, 7590-7591 2016-02818 Voluntary Magazine Questionnaire For Agencies/Entities Who Store Explosive Materials, 7589-7590 2016-02898
Labor Department Labor Department See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, 7593 2016-02886 NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee, 7593-7594 2016-02885 Science Committee, 7594 2016-02868 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration See

Information Security Oversight Office

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Petition for Rulemaking; Denials: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 7492-7493 2016-02763 National Institute Food National Institute of Food and Agriculture NOTICES Interagency Special Report: 2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report, 7497-7499 2016-02927 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 7506 2016-02860 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 7549-7550, 7552 2016-02851 2016-02852 2016-02853 2016-02850 National Institute on Drug Abuse, 7550-7552 2016-02848 2016-02849 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration PROPOSED RULES Pacific Island Fisheries: Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Revised Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, 7494-7496 2016-02843 Trade Monitoring Procedures for Fishery Products; International Trade in Seafood: Permit Requirements for Importers and Exporters Public Meetings; Correction, 7493 2016-03053 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7507 2016-02904 Meetings: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7507-7508 2016-02933 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Permits Issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, 7595 2016-02835 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 7454-7455 2016-02810 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 7595-7596 2016-02854 2016-02855 2016-02856 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Committees; Establishment, Renewal, Termination, etc.: Enhancing National Cybersecurity, Commission on; Establishment (EO 13718), 7441-7444 2016-03038 Privacy Council, Federal; Establishment (EO 13719), 7685-7689 2016-03141 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act; Sequestration Order for FY 2017 (Order of February 9, 2016), 7691-7693 2016-03170 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7499 2016-02949 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 7596-7597, 7616-7618 2016-02832 2016-02833 Applications: State Farm Associates' Funds Trust, et al., 7619-7620 2016-02834 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 7599-7609 2016-02838 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 7609-7613 2016-02841 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 7613-7616 2016-02839 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 7618-7619 2016-02836 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 7597-7599, 7620-7623 2016-02837 2016-02840 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Conflicts of Interest Exemption Requests: C3 Capital Partners III, LP, 7624 2016-02872 Disaster Declarations: Arkansas, 7624-7625 2016-02929 2016-02931 Florida, 7623 2016-02873 2016-02874 Michigan, 7623-7624 2016-02928 Oklahoma; Amendment 1, 7624 2016-02930 State Department State Department RULES Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended, 7454 2016-02962 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Trackage Rights Exemptions: Wisconsin Central Ltd. from Lines of Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Illinois Central Railroad Co., 7625-7626 2016-02903 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification, 7564-7565 2016-02363 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140; Extension, 7565-7566 2016-02915 Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, 7566-7567 2016-02942 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Approvals: Amspec Services, LLC, 7553-7556 2016-02954 2016-02960 Saybolt LP, 7556 2016-02961 Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Approvals: and Accreditations: Inspectorate America Corp., Aston, PA, 7554-7555 2016-02951 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES West Los Angeles VA Medical Center; Draft Master Plan, 7630 2016-02883 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Charter Amendments: Advisory Board on Toxic Substances and Worker Health, 7592-7593 2016-02859 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 7632-7651 2016-02584 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7654-7684 2016-02789 Part IV Presidential Documents, 7685-7689 2016-03141 Part V Presidential Documents, 7691-7693 2016-03170 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 29 Friday, February 12, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 601 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2103] Removal of Review and Reclassification Procedures for Biological Products Licensed Prior to July 1, 1972 AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is removing two regulations that prescribe procedures for FDA's review and classification of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972. FDA is taking this action because the two regulations are obsolete and no longer necessary in light of other statutory and regulatory authorities established since 1972, which allow FDA to evaluate and monitor the safety and effectiveness of all biological products. In addition, other statutory and regulatory authorities authorize FDA to revoke a license for biological products because they are not safe and effective, or are misbranded. FDA is taking this action as part of its retrospective review of its regulations to promote improvement and innovation.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this final rule into the “Search” box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1062, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica T. Walker, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Final Rule

FDA is removing two regulations that prescribe procedures for FDA's review and classification of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972, because the two regulations are obsolete and no longer necessary in light of other statutory and regulatory authorities established since 1972. These other statutory and regulatory authorities allow FDA to evaluate and monitor the safety and effectiveness of all biological products and authorize FDA to revoke a license for products because they are not safe and effective, or are misbranded.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Final Rule

The final rule removes §§ 601.25 and 601.26 (21 CFR 601.25 and 601.26), which prescribe procedures for FDA's review and classification of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972.

C. Legal Authority

FDA is taking this action under the biological products provisions of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS Act), and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).

D. Costs and Benefits

Because this final rule would not impose any additional regulatory burdens, this regulation is not anticipated to result in any compliance costs and the economic impact is expected to be minimal.

II. Background A. History of the Rulemaking

In the Federal Register of July 2, 2015 (80 FR 38145), FDA proposed to remove regulations that prescribe procedures for FDA's review and classification of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, these regulations were originally issued after the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced in the Federal Register on March 15, 1972, that the Division of Biologics Standards, NIH, would review the effectiveness of all licensed biologicals (37 FR 5404). In the Federal Register of June 29, 1972 (37 FR 12865), FDA announced the transfer of regulatory authority over biological products from the Division of Biologics Standards, NIH, to FDA. After obtaining regulatory authority over biological products, the Commissioner of FDA proposed procedures for reviewing the safety, effectiveness, and labeling of all biological products licensed at the time of the transfer on July 1, 1972 (37 FR 16679, August 18, 1972). The procedures for review of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972, were codified in 21 CFR 273.245 (38 FR 4319 at 4321, February 13, 1973) and later redesignated to § 601.25 (38 FR 32048, November 20, 1973). The procedures for review of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972, were supplemented by procedures codified in § 601.26 (47 FR 44062, October 5, 1982).

B. Current Methods for Ensuring the Safety and Effectiveness of Biological Products

Since establishing the procedures under §§ 601.25 and 601.26, FDA developed new regulations to assess and ensure the safety and efficacy of biological products. FDA issued the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations, which contain the minimum cGMP for preparation of drug products, including biological products. The cGMP regulations help FDA ensure that such products meet the requirements for product safety, effectiveness, and labeling. FDA also helps ensure the safety and effectiveness of biological products through application of other regulations, such as the reporting of biological product deviations by licensed manufacturers (see 21 CFR 600.14), postmarketing reporting of adverse experiences (21 CFR 600.80), and labeling regulations (for example, 21 CFR part 201). Biological products that do not meet the requirements under these regulations are subject to license revocation under 21 CFR 601.5, which allows FDA to revoke any biologics license for a product that fails to meet applicable standards and fails to comply with regulations designed to help ensure the safety, purity, and potency of the licensed product, and that the product is not misbranded.

In addition, FDA continues to help ensure the safety and effectiveness of licensed biological products through the development and application of additional standards and mechanisms. These mechanisms assist FDA in evaluating and monitoring the safety and effectiveness of biological products.

C. Summary of Comments to the Proposed Rule

FDA did not receive any comments on the proposed rule.

D. General Overview of the Final Rule

The final rule removes §§ 601.25 and 601.26 of the regulations, which prescribe procedures for FDA's review and classification of biological products licensed before July 1, 1972. FDA is taking this action because these regulations are obsolete and no longer necessary in light of other statutory and regulatory authorities established since 1972, which allow FDA to evaluate and monitor the safety and effectiveness of all biological products.

III. Legal Authority

FDA is issuing this regulation under the biological products provisions of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264) and the drugs and general administrative provisions of the FD&C Act (sections 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510, 701, and 704 (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360, 371, and 374)). Under these provisions of the PHS Act and the FD&C Act, we have the authority to issue and enforce regulations designed to ensure that biological products are safe, pure, and potent; and to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable disease.

IV. Economic Analysis of Impacts

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this final rule removes regulations that are obsolete and no longer necessary in light of other current statutory and regulatory authorities, FDA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would not result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

V. Analysis of Environmental Impact

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

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VII. Federalism

We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the Agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 601

Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Confidential business information.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 601 is amended as follows:

PART 601—LICENSING 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 601 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 1451-1561; 21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356b, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 371, 374, 379e, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 263, 264; sec 122, Pub. L. 105-115, 111 Stat. 2322 (21 U.S.C. 355 note).

§ 601.25 [Removed]
2. Remove § 601.25.
§ 601.26 [Removed]
3. Remove § 601.26.
Dated: February 5, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02884 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 868 and 870 [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1174] Anesthesiology Devices; Reclassification of Membrane Lung for Long-Term Pulmonary Support; Redesignation as Extracorporeal Circuit and Accessories for Long-Term Respiratory/Cardiopulmonary Failure AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to redesignate membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support, a preamendments class III device, as extracorporeal circuit and accessories for long-term respiratory/cardiopulmonary failure, and to reclassify the device to class II (special controls) in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. A membrane lung device for long-term pulmonary support (>6 hours) refers to the oxygenator in an extracorporeal circuit used during long-term procedures, commonly referred to as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Because a number of other devices and accessories are used with the oxygenator in the circuit, the title and identification of the regulation are revised to include extracorporeal circuit and accessories for long-term respiratory/cardiopulmonary failure. Although an individual device or accessory used in an ECMO circuit may already have its own classification regulation when the device or accessory is intended for short-term use (≤6 hours), such device or accessory will be subject to the same regulatory controls applied to the oxygenator (i.e., class II, special controls) when evaluated as part of the ECMO circuit for long-term use (>6 hours). On its own initiative, based on new information, FDA is revising the classification of the membrane lung device for long-term pulmonary support.

DATES:

This order is effective February 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fernando Aguel, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1234, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-6326, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background—Regulatory Authorities

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments) (Pub. L. 94-295), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-629), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115), the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250), the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 108-214), the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), and the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144), among other amendments, established a comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices intended for human use. Section 513 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c) established three categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II (special controls), and class III (premarket approval).

Under section 513(d) of the FD&C Act, devices that were in commercial distribution before the enactment of the 1976 amendments, May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as preamendments devices), are classified after FDA has: (1) Received a recommendation from a device classification panel (an FDA advisory committee); (2) published the panel's recommendation for comment, along with a proposed regulation classifying the device; and (3) published a final regulation classifying the device. FDA has classified most preamendments devices under these procedures.

Devices that were not in commercial distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (generally referred to as postamendments devices) are automatically classified by section 513(f) of the FD&C Act into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. Those devices remain in class III and require premarket approval unless, and until, the device is reclassified into class I or II or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).

A preamendments device that has been classified into class III and devices found substantially equivalent by means of premarket notification procedures (510(k)) to such a preamendments device or to a device within that type (both the preamendments and substantially equivalent devices are referred to as preamendments class III devices) may be marketed without submission of a premarket approval application (PMA) until FDA issues a final order under section 515(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e(b)) requiring premarket approval or until the device is subsequently reclassified into class I or class II.

On July 9, 2012, FDASIA was enacted. Section 608(a) of FDASIA (126 Stat. 1056) amended section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, changing the mechanism for reclassifying a device from rulemaking to an administrative order.

Section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may, by administrative order, reclassify a device based upon “new information.” FDA can initiate a reclassification under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act or an interested person may petition FDA to reclassify a preamendments device. The term “new information,” as used in section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, includes information developed as a result of a reevaluation of the data before the Agency when the device was originally classified, as well as information not presented, not available, or not developed at that time. (See, e.g., Holland-Rantos Co. v. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 587 F.2d 1173, 1174 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Upjohn v. Finch, 422 F.2d 944 (6th Cir. 1970); Bell v. Goddard, 366 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1966).)

Reevaluation of the data previously before the Agency is an appropriate basis for subsequent action where the reevaluation is made in light of newly available authority (see Bell, 366 F.2d at 181; Ethicon, Inc. v. FDA, 762 F.Supp. 382, 388-391 (D.D.C. 1991)), or in light of changes in “medical science” (Upjohn, 422 F.2d at 951). Whether data before the Agency are old or new data, the “new information” to support reclassification under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act must be “valid scientific evidence,” as defined in section 513(a)(3) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 860.7(c)(2). (See, e.g., General Medical Co. v. FDA, 770 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Contact Lens Manufacturers Assoc. v. FDA, 766 F.2d 592 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062 (1986).)

FDA relies upon “valid scientific evidence” in the classification process to determine the level of regulation for devices. To be considered in the reclassification process, the “valid scientific evidence” upon which the Agency relies must be publicly available. Publicly available information excludes trade secret and/or confidential commercial information, e.g., the contents of a pending PMA (see section 520(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(c)).)

Section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act sets forth the process for issuing a final reclassification order. Specifically, prior to the issuance of a final order reclassifying a device, the following must occur: (1) Publication of a proposed order in the Federal Register; (2) a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act; and (3) consideration of comments to a public docket.

II. Regulatory History of the Device

FDA published a proposed order to reclassify this device in the Federal Register of January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1158) (the “proposed order”). As noted in the proposed order, on July 16, 1982, the Agency issued a final rule classifying all membrane lungs for long-term pulmonary support into class III (47 FR 31130). On May 11, 1987, FDA published a final rule amending the codified language for this device to clarify that no effective date had been established for the requirement for premarket approval for membrane lungs for long-term pulmonary support devices (52 FR 17732 at 17735). This device is currently under product code BYS.

As discussed in the proposed order, FDA considered the available information on these devices and concluded that these devices could be reclassified to class II, subject to the identified special controls. As required by section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA convened a meeting of a device classification panel described in section 513(b) of the FD&C Act with respect to the membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support on September 12, 2013, followed by a meeting on May 7, 2014. The deliberations of the device classification panels are discussed in section IV of this order. FDA received and has considered two comments on the January 8, 2013, proposed order, as discussed in section III. Therefore, FDA has met the requirements for issuing a final order under section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act.

III. Public Comments in Response to the Proposed Order

FDA received two comments in response to the January 8, 2013, proposed order to reclassify membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for conditions where imminent death is threatened by cardiopulmonary failure in neonates and infants or where cardiopulmonary failure results in the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass following cardiac surgery.

One comment supported FDA's reclassification proposal but requested that the Agency clarify the population covered and the conditions included in the reclassification. According to the commenter, it seemed that the membrane lung device could be used for long-term support in neonates and infants only when imminent death is threatened by cardiopulmonary failure, but for the remaining population (e.g., pediatric and adult patients), the membrane lung could be used for long-term support only when cardiopulmonary failure results in the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass following cardiac surgery. With respect to the conditions covered, the commenter sought clarification as to whether the reclassification was limited only to cardiopulmonary conditions or to cardiac failure as well. FDA is clarifying the intended uses covered by the reclassification in this final order. Specifically, after considering the input from the September 12, 2013, and May 7, 2014, classification panel meetings, comments on the proposed order and all other available information, FDA has determined that the reclassification applies to ECMO as a system of devices and accessories that provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. This revised scope better reflects use of ECMO as a tool that provides extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood and more accurately reflects the function of the device. FDA has not cleared any ECMO devices that are indicated for specific patient populations or conditions. As such, FDA believes that the intended uses included in this final order should remain broad, rather than specify patient populations or conditions to be treated, to reflect use of ECMO as a tool.

Another comment disagreed with FDA's intent to reclassify membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support, stating that “ECMO devices must remain categorized as class III devices for all indications because they are life-sustaining devices for which clinical trials are necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.” FDA disagrees with this comment. According to section 513(a)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act, a class III device is defined as a device which: (1) Cannot be classified as a class I device because insufficient information exists to determine that the application of general controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device; and (2) cannot be classified as a class II device because insufficient information exists to determine that the special controls would provide reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness; and (3) is purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health; or (4) presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.

Although FDA considers membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support to be life-supporting, a viewpoint that was supported by the panel members at the September 12, 2013 (2013 Panel), and May 7, 2014 (2014 Panel), device classification panel meetings, FDA believes that the available information supports FDA's determination that special controls, in addition to general controls, would be sufficient to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Further, the 2013 and 2014 Panels largely supported reclassification of ECMO for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure as noted in section IV of this order. As mentioned previously and discussed further in section IV, ECMO is a tool which provides extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood. The special controls identified in this final order, including clinical performance data, ensure that the device can function as intended to provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood for the intended duration of device use. The Agency believes that the risks of ECMO devices are sufficiently understood based on valid scientific evidence and that the risks of ECMO devices can be mitigated with the special controls identified in this final order. The special controls mitigate the risks to health identified for the device as outlined in section IV, table 1. Therefore, FDA does not agree that membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure should remain a class III device.

The commenter also expressed concern that the reclassification of these devices would mean that companies manufacturing new versions of the device would not be required to show that their products are safe and effective. The commenter suggests that classification to class II (special controls) precludes FDA from requesting clinical data for these devices. FDA disagrees with this comment. FDA believes that the identified special controls provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. FDA has determined that by complying with the identified special controls, the currently legally marketed devices within this classification regulation will be reasonably safe and effective when used for acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure. Future devices claiming substantial equivalence to an available predicate(s) must demonstrate that they are substantially equivalent, as defined under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to the predicate device and comply with all applicable FDA regulations and with the special controls in order to be classified into class II. Classification to class II (special controls) does not preclude FDA from requesting clinical data for these devices. In some cases, clinical data may be needed to comply with the special controls and demonstrate substantial equivalence to an available predicate. For example, special control § 870.4100(b)(v) regarding in vivo evaluation of the device could include clinical trial data, clinical information from the literature, and/or animal study data.

The commenter further expressed concern that reclassification for some indications will reduce the incentive to undertake future studies for untested indications due to the availability of the devices for “off-label” use. FDA notes in response to this comment that, generally, FDA regulates the use of a device as indicated by the party offering the device for interstate commerce.

The commenter also sought assurance from FDA that membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for indications not identified in the proposed order would remain in class III and therefore require the submission of a PMA. FDA notes that by identifying the intended uses covered by the revised classification regulation, uses that fall outside the definition would not be subject to the order but rather would be classified under section 513 of the FD&C Act.

IV. Deliberations of the Panels and FDA Consideration of Panel Input

As required by section 513(e)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA convened a meeting of the Circulatory System Devices Panel to consider the existing valid scientific evidence to support reclassification to class II of membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support. One meeting was held on September 12, 2013 (2013 Panel), regarding pediatric uses for ECMO and another meeting was held on May 7, 2014 (2014 Panel), regarding adult uses for ECMO (Refs. 1 and 2).

On September 12, 2013, FDA presented the risks associated with use of the membrane lung device for long-term pulmonary support. The 2013 Panel mostly agreed that the risks to health were adequately captured as presented by FDA. Several 2013 Panel members discussed whether the list of risks to health should also include information on renal dysfunction, neurologic injury, disseminated intravascular coagulation, transfusion issues, and inflammatory responses. FDA explained that such effects are more appropriately characterized not as risks to health but rather as adverse events that may result from the risks to health. The 2013 Panel understood this distinction but requested that FDA consider expanding the definition of adverse tissue reaction to include inflammatory response. FDA considered the 2013 Panel's input when updating the risks to health for the 2014 Panel and this final order.

The 2013 Panel agreed that the available scientific evidence supported the safety and effectiveness for ECMO and its accessories for conditions where the subject is at threat of imminent death caused by acute reversible respiratory failure (e.g., meconium aspiration, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, pulmonary hypertension) in neonates and infants, or where acute cardiopulmonary failure results in the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass following cardiac surgery in all pediatric patients.

The 2013 Panel also agreed that the probable benefits to health from use of the extracorporeal circuit and its accessories for long-term pulmonary and cardiopulmonary support for these uses outweigh the probable risks. As noted previously, FDA has further considered all available information and has determined that the risks to health identified for ECMO are the same across neonatal, infant, pediatric, and adult populations. This is consistent with input from the 2013 and 2014 Panels, which found that the risks to health for the pediatric and adult populations do not differ. Further, FDA believes that the available safety and effectiveness information supports use of ECMO as a tool to provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. FDA is providing greater clarity in this final order by simplifying the identification of ECMO devices in the classification regulation to better reflect what an ECMO circuit performs, not specify patient populations or conditions to be treated. Specific indications for use for ECMO, including specific patient populations and/or conditions, are further discussed in this document.

In general, the 2013 Panel believed the special controls in the proposed order would mitigate the identified risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the extracorporeal circuit and its accessories. However, some 2013 Panel members recommended that compatibility of the various circuit accessories be evaluated to ensure that the circuit accessories can function together as intended. FDA believes that the special controls will be able to address the issue of circuit accessories' compatibility. Specifically, the following special controls from the classification regulation address this concern: (1) The design characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and design parameters are consistent with the intended use; (2) non-clinical performance evaluation of the device must demonstrate substantial equivalence for performance characteristics on the bench, mechanical integrity, electromagnetic compatibility(where applicable), software, durability, and reliability; and (3) labeling must include a detailed summary of the non-clinical and clinical evaluations pertinent to use of the device and adequate instructions with respect to anticoagulation, circuit setup, performance characteristics with respect to compatibility with other circuit accessories, and maintenance during a procedure.

The 2013 Panel unanimously agreed that the membrane lung device for long-term pulmonary support is life-supporting. The 2013 Panel further stated that the available scientific evidence and the proposed special controls, in conjunction with general controls, supported the reclassification to class II of membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary/cardiopulmonary support in pediatric patients. The 2013 Panel expressed concern about not having had the opportunity to review data regarding use of the device in adults, given that use of ECMO in adults had increased significantly over the years. The 2013 Panel recommended that FDA convene another meeting to review the available literature regarding use of the membrane lung device for long-term pulmonary support in adults before finalizing the proposed reclassification.

On May 7, 2014, FDA convened the 2014 Panel to discuss the classification of the membrane lung for long-term support, specifically for adult pulmonary and cardiopulmonary indications. For both pulmonary and cardiopulmonary intended uses, the 2014 Panel believed that the list of risks to health presented by FDA were comprehensive and adequately captured. Of note, in response to the 2013 Panel's recommendation regarding risks to health, FDA expanded the definition of adverse tissue reaction to include inflammatory response.

The majority of the 2014 Panel believed that the available scientific evidence is adequate to support a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the extracorporeal circuit and its accessories for long-term pulmonary support in adults, but recommended that FDA modify the intended use from “pulmonary support” to “acute, hypoxic, reversible respiratory failure.” FDA agrees with the 2014 Panel that “respiratory failure” is a more accurate reflection of the use of ECMO as a tool to provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood in patients rather than “pulmonary support.” FDA has considered this input from the panel and has determined that acute respiratory failure is the appropriate intended use from a clinical and regulatory perspective to reflect such use. This change is reflected in the classification regulation. The Panel also agreed that the available scientific evidence is adequate to support a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device for long-term cardiopulmonary support in adults suffering from “cardiopulmonary failure due to acute catastrophic cardiogenic shock.” FDA agrees with the 2014 Panel that “acute cardiopulmonary failure” is a more accurate reflection of the use of ECMO as a tool to provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood in patients rather than “cardiopulmonary support.” FDA has considered this input from the panel and has determined that acute cardiopulmonary failure is the appropriate intended use from a clinical and regulatory perspective to reflect such use. This change is reflected in the classification regulation. For both pulmonary and cardiopulmonary support in adults, the 2014 Panel agreed that the probable benefits to health from use of the device outweigh the probable risks to health where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent.

The 2014 Panel agreed that FDA's list of special controls were appropriate and comprehensive. The 2014 Panel further agreed that the special controls would mitigate the identified risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device when used to provide long-term support in adults with acute respiratory failure or cardiopulmonary failure.

For both acute respiratory and acute cardiopulmonary indications in adults, the 2014 Panel unanimously agreed that the membrane lung device for long-term support is life-supporting. The 2014 Panel further believes that the available scientific evidence and the proposed special controls support the reclassification to class II of membrane lung devices for long-term support in adults with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure.

After considering input from both the 2013 and 2014 Panels, FDA believes that the risks to health identified can be mitigated by the special controls as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1—Health Risks and Mitigation Measures for ECMO Devices Identified risk Mitigation measures Thrombocytopenia Technological characteristics; Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Hemolysis Technological characteristics; Biocompatibility testing; Non-clinical performance evaluation; Labeling. Adverse tissue reaction (including inflammatory response) Biocompatibility testing; Labeling. Inadequate gas exchange Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Gas embolism Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Mechanical failure Technological characteristics; Non-clinical performance evaluation; Labeling. Hemorrhage In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Hemodilution Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Thrombosis/thromboembolism Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling. Infection Sterility; Shelf life testing. Mechanical injury to access vessels Non-clinical performance evaluation; In vivo evaluation; Labeling.

At both the 2013 Panel and 2014 Panel meetings, FDA provided a summary of information from the clinical literature regarding specific patient populations and conditions to be treated using ECMO (Refs.1 and 2). Of note, FDA has not cleared any ECMO devices that are indicated for specific patient populations or conditions. As such, FDA believes that the intended uses included in this final order should remain broad to reflect use of ECMO as a tool to provide extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of blood in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. However, FDA believes that there are specific indications (patient populations and/or conditions) that would fall within this broader intended use and therefore be within the scope of this regulation as outlined in this document.

Specifically, FDA has reviewed the clinical literature and has determined that there are sufficient data available to support labeling ECMO devices for the following specific indications (patient populations and/or conditions) at this time: Meconium aspiration in neonates and infants; congenital diaphragmatic hernia in neonates and infants; pulmonary hypertension in neonates and infants; failure to wean from cardiopulmonary bypass following cardiac surgery in pediatric and adult patients; and ECMO-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults.

FDA has further evaluated data from the clinical literature and determined that the data available do not support labeling ECMO devices for certain specific indications (patient populations and/or conditions) at this time without additional clinical data from sponsors to support such uses, consistent with the identified special controls, including but not limited to: High risk percutaneous coronary intervention; trauma resuscitation; failed heart or lung transplant; acute respiratory distress syndrome; and/or acute decompensation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

For ECMO devices that have not been legally marketed prior to the effective date of the final order, or models (if any) that have been legally marketed but are required to submit a new 510(k) under § 807.81(a)(3) because the device is about to be significantly changed or modified, manufacturers must obtain 510(k) clearance, among other relevant requirements, and demonstrate compliance with the special controls included in the final order, before marketing the new or changed device.

V. The Final Order

Under section 513(e) of the FD&C Act, FDA is adopting its findings as published in the preamble to the proposed order (78 FR 1158) with modifications as discussed in section IV of this final order. FDA is issuing this final order to reclassify the membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support from class III to class II for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent, and to establish special controls. FDA is removing the regulation from 21 CFR part 868 (Anesthesiology Devices) and adding it to 21 CFR part 870 (Cardiovascular Devices) to better align this device type (and the review thereof) with other similar types of cardiovascular devices. The title and identification of § 870.4100 (21 CFR 870.4100) reflects the Agency's intent to regulate ECMO and the accessories used in ECMO under the same set of regulatory controls. However, an individual device or accessory in an ECMO circuit may already have its own classification regulation when intended for short-term use (≤6 hours) and, in those instances, such device or accessory is subject to the preexisting regulation(s).

Following the effective date of this final order, firms marketing membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent, must comply with the particular mitigation measures set forth in the special controls.

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the devices. FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of membrane lung devices for long-term pulmonary support for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent, and, therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements.

VI. Analysis of Environmental Impact

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This final order refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart B, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; and the collections of information under 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

VIII. Codification of Orders

Prior to the amendments by FDASIA, section 513(e) of the FD&C Act provided for FDA to issue regulations to reclassify devices. Although section 513(e) of the FD&C Act as amended requires FDA to issue final orders rather than regulations, FDASIA also provides for FDA to revoke previously issued regulations by order. FDA will continue to codify classifications and reclassifications in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Changes resulting from final orders will appear in the CFR as changes to codified classification determinations or as newly codified orders. Therefore, under section 513(e)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act, as amended by FDASIA, in this final order, we are revoking the requirements in 21 CFR 868.5610 related to the classification of membrane lung for long-term pulmonary support as class III devices and codifying under § 870.4100 the reclassification of membrane lung for long-term pulmonary support for use in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent into class II (special controls).

IX. References

The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. The panel transcript and other meeting materials for the September 12, 2013, Circulatory System Devices Panel are available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/ucm342357.htm. 2. The panel transcript and other meeting materials for the May 7, 2014, Circulatory System Devices Panel are available on FDA's Web site at. http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/CirculatorySystemDevicesPanel/ucm395638.htm List of Subjects in 21 CFR Parts 868 and 870

Medical devices.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 868 and 870 are amended as follows:

PART 868—ANESTHESIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 868 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

§ 868.5610 [Removed]
2. Remove § 868.5610.
PART 870—CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 870 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

2. Add § 870.4100 to subpart E to read as follows:
§ 870.4100 Extracorporeal circuit and accessories for long-term respiratory/cardiopulmonary failure.

(a) Identification. An extracorporeal circuit and accessories for long-term respiratory/cardiopulmonary support (>6 hours) is a system of devices and accessories that provides assisted extracorporeal circulation and physiologic gas exchange of the patient's blood in patients with acute respiratory failure or acute cardiopulmonary failure, where other available treatment options have failed, and continued clinical deterioration is expected or the risk of death is imminent. The main devices and accessories of the system include, but are not limited to, the console (hardware), software, and disposables, including, but not limited to, an oxygenator, blood pump, heat exchanger, cannulae, tubing, filters, and other accessories (e.g., monitors, detectors, sensors, connectors).

(b) Classification—Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

(1) The technological characteristics of the device must ensure that the geometry and design parameters are consistent with the intended use, and that the devices and accessories in the circuit are compatible;

(2) The devices and accessories in the circuit must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;

(3) Sterility and shelf-life testing must demonstrate the sterility of any patient-contacting devices and accessories in the circuit and the shelf life of these devices and accessories;

(4) Non-clinical performance evaluation of the devices and accessories in the circuit must demonstrate substantial equivalence of the performance characteristics on the bench, mechanical integrity, electromagnetic compatibility (where applicable), software, durability, and reliability;

(5) In vivo evaluation of the devices and accessories in the circuit must demonstrate their performance over the intended duration of use, including a detailed summary of the clinical evaluation pertinent to the use of the devices and accessories to demonstrate their effectiveness if a specific indication (patient population and/or condition) is identified; and

(6) Labeling must include a detailed summary of the non-clinical and in vivo evaluations pertinent to use of the devices and accessories in the circuit and adequate instructions with respect to anticoagulation, circuit setup, performance characteristics with respect to compatibility among different devices and accessories in the circuit, and maintenance during a procedure.

Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02876 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 878 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0237] Medical Devices; General and Plastic Surgery Devices; Classification of the Scalp Cooling System To Reduce the Likelihood of Chemotherapy-Induced Alopecia AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final order.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

DATES:

This order is effective February 12, 2016. The classification was applicable on December 8, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Ogden, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G414, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6397.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

On March 6, 2015, Target Health, Inc. (on behalf of Dignitana AB) submitted a request for classification of the DigniCapTM Scalp Cooling System under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request and the medical literature, if applicable, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on December 8, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 878.4360 (21 CFR 878.4360).

Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order.

The device is assigned the generic name scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and it is identified as a scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia intended to reduce the frequency and severity of alopecia during chemotherapy in which alopecia-inducing chemotherapeutic agents are used. The device is a prescription device.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks:

Table 1—Scalp Cooling System To Reduce the Likelihood of Chemotherapy-Induced Alopecia Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Thermal Tissue Damage Non-clinical Performance Testing.
  • Software Verification, Validation, and Hazard Analysis Labeling.
  • Electromagnetic Interference/Electrical Shock Electromagnetic Compatibility and Electrical Testing Labeling. Adverse Tissue Reaction Biocompatibility. Increased Risk of Scalp Metastases Labeling.
  • Patient Labeling.
  • Use Error Labeling. Scalp Pain, Headache, and Chills Labeling.
  • Patient Labeling.
  • FDA believes that the special controls in § 878.4360(b)(1) through (6), in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

    Scalp cooling systems to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act, if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia they intend to market.

    II. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. DEN150010: De novo request per 513(f)(2) from Target Health, Inc. (on behalf of Dignitana AB), dated March 6, 2015. List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 878

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 878 is amended as follows:

    PART 878—GENERAL AND PLASTIC SURGERY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 878 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

    2. Add § 878.4360 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 878.4360 Scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia.

    (a) Identification. A scalp cooling system to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced alopecia is a prescription device intended to reduce the frequency and severity of alopecia during chemotherapy in which alopecia-inducing chemotherapeutic agents are used.

    (b) Classification—Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements, and that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. This information must include testing to demonstrate accuracy of the temperature control mechanism.

    (2) Performance testing must demonstrate the electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety of the device.

    (3) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

    (4) The patient contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible. Material names must be provided.

    (5) Labeling must include the following:

    (i) A statement describing the potential risk of developing scalp metastasis.

    (ii) Information on the patient population and chemotherapeutic agents/regimen for which the device has been demonstrated to be effective.

    (iii) A summary of the non-clinical and/or clinical testing pertinent to use of the device.

    (iv) A summary of the device technical parameters, including temperature cooling range and duration of cooling.

    (v) A summary of the device- and procedure-related adverse events pertinent to use of the device.

    (vi) Information on how the device operates and the typical course of treatment.

    (6) Patient labeling must be provided and must include:

    (i) Relevant contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse effects/complications.

    (ii) Information on how the device operates and the typical course of treatment.

    (iii) Information on the patient population for which there is clinical evidence of effectiveness.

    (iv) The potential risks and benefits associated with use of the device.

    (v) Postoperative care instructions.

    (vi) A statement describing the potential risk of developing scalp metastasis.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02878 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 41 [Public Notice: 9439] RIN 1400-AD17 Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State published a Federal Register interim final rule on February 4, 2016, in Volume 81, No. 23, page 5906. The document contains an error in the Regulatory Findings. This document corrects the rule by replacing the text, “included elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register” with “published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2016, 81 FR 6430.” There is also a correction in the ADDRESSES section, to provide the correct public notice number to find the rule to submit comments on www.regulations.gov.

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on February 19, 2016. Written comments must be received on or before April 4, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul-Anthony L. Magadia, U.S. Department of State, Visa Services, Legislation and Regulations Division, Washington, DC 20006, 202-485-7641; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of State published an interim final rule on February 4, 2016 (81 FR 5906); this document corrects text in the ADDRESSES section and in the discussion of Executive Order 12866.

    Correction

    In the FR Doc 2016-02191, appearing on page 5906 in the Federal Register of February 4, 2016 (81 FR 5906):

    1. In the second column of page 5906, third item under ADDRESSES, the term “XXXX” is corrected to read “9428.”

    2. In the third column of page 5907, the first sentence of the discussion regarding “Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Review” is corrected to read: “The costs of this rulemaking are discussed in the companion DHS rule, RIN 1651-AB09, published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2016, 81 FR 6430.”

    Dated: February 9, 2016. David S. Newman, Director of Legal Affairs, Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02962 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in March 2016. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

    DATES:

    Effective March 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine B. Klion ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

    PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

    The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for March 2016.1

    1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

    The March 2016 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for February 2016, these interest assumptions are unchanged.

    PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

    Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during March 2016, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

    PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

    Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

    PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

    2. In appendix B to part 4022, add Rate Set 269 to the table to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 269 3-1-16 4-1-16 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, add Rate Set 269 to the table to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate
  • annuity rate
  • (percent)
  • Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 269 3-1-16 4-1-16 1.25 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 4th day of February 2016. Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02810 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 9 and 721 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399; FRL-9941-56] RIN 2070-AB27 Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is finalizing significant new use rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for three chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process any of the chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. The required notification would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or use the chemical substances contained in this rule. 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:

    • Manufacturers (including importers) or processors of one or more subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.

    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to these SNURs must certify their compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance to a proposed or final rule are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see § 721.20), and must comply with the export notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

    II. Background A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing SNURs, under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for three very long chain chlorinated paraffin (vLCCPs—alkyl chain length of C21 and above) chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109. This final rule requires persons who intend to manufacture or process any of these chemical substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.

    In the Federal Register of August 7, 2013 (78 FR 48051) (FRL-9393-4), EPA issued direct final SNURs on these three chemical substances in accordance with the procedures at § 721.160(c)(3)(i). EPA received notices of intent to submit adverse comments on these SNURs. Therefore, as required by § 721.160(c)(3)(ii), EPA removed the direct final SNURs in a separate final rule published in the Federal Register of November 5, 2013 (78 FR 66279) (FRL-9902-16), and issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7621) (FRL-9903-43). The record for the direct final SNURs on these chemical substances was established as docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399. That docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the proposed and final rules, including comments on the proposed rule.

    EPA received several comments on the proposed rules for these three chemical substances, from a single commenter representing chlorinated paraffin (CP) manufacturers (including the submitter of the PMNs that are the subject of these SNURs). A full discussion of EPA's response to these comments is included in Unit V. of this document. After consideration of these comments, because the potential remains for increased exposure that formed the basis for the proposed SNURs, EPA is issuing the final rules as they were proposed for the chemical substances.

    B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit IV. of this rule. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in § 721.5.

    C. Applicability of General Provisions

    General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability of the final rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. According to § 721.1(c), persons subject to these SNURs must comply with the same SNUN requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of PMNs under TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7 to control the activities for which it has received the SNUN. If EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.

    III. Rationale and Objectives of the Final Rule A. Rationale

    During review of the PMNs submitted for the three chemical substances that are subject to these final SNURs, EPA concluded that regulation was warranted under TSCA section 5(e), pending the development of information sufficient to make reasoned evaluations of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substances. The basis for these findings is outlined in Unit IV of the proposed rule. Based on these findings, a TSCA section 5(e) consent order was negotiated with the PMN submitter that required manufacture of the substances at certain cumulative, aggregate volumes unless the company has submitted the results of certain environmental effects studies; no manufacture of the substances with the amount of chlorinated paraffins, with an alkyl chain less than or equal to 20, to exceed more than 1 percent of that PMN substance by weight; and risk notification. The SNUR provisions for these chemical substances are consistent with the provisions of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order. These final SNURs are issued pursuant to § 721.160. See the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399 for the corresponding consent order. For additional discussion of the rationale for the SNURs on these chemicals, see Units II., IV, and V. of the proposed rule.

    B. Objectives

    EPA is issuing final SNURs for three chemical substances described above to achieve the following objectives with regard to the significant new uses designated in this final rule:

    • EPA will receive notice of any person's intent to manufacture or process a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use before that activity begins.

    • EPA will have an opportunity to review and evaluate data submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins manufacturing or processing a listed chemical substance for the described significant new use.

    • EPA will be able to regulate prospective manufacturers or processors of a listed chemical substance before the described significant new use of that chemical substance occurs, provided that regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f), 6, or 7.

    Issuance of a SNUR for a chemical substance does not signify that the chemical substance is listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). Guidance on how to determine if a chemical substance is on the TSCA Inventory is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory/about-tsca-chemical-substance-inventory.

    IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:

    • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

    • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorized EPA to consider any other relevant factors.

    To determine what would constitute a significant new use for the chemical substances listed in this final rule, EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substances, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with possible uses, and the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

    V. Response to Comments on Proposed SNUR

    EPA received comments from the Chlorinated Paraffins Industry Association (CPIA), which represents the CP industry, including the submitter of the PMN substances that are the subject of these SNURs and other chlorinated paraffin manufacturers. CPIA's comments, and associated attachments, can be found in the public docket under ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399-0198.

    Comment 1: Based on existing data and recent reviews, CPIA believes long chain chlorinated paraffin (LCCP—alkyl chain length of C18 to C20) production and use in the U.S. present an extremely low risk to human health and the environment. Given this, CPIA questions the need for EPA to take specific action under TSCA Section 5(a)(2) for any substances that could be considered LCCP. CPIA then provides information on why they believe LCCPs and vLCCPs do not present a risk.

    Response: The comments primarily addressed the underlying risk assessments associated with the PMNs. EPA defers a discussion of the commenter's specific concerns as they are not relevant to the basis for determining that the uses specified in these SNURs constitute significant new uses. EPA is neither required to determine that a particular new use of any chemical substance presents, nor even that it may present, an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. Rather, EPA issues a SNUR for a use of a substance if it is a significant new use (e.g., EPA has reason to anticipate that the use would raise significant questions related to potential exposure, so that the Agency should have an opportunity to review the use before such use should occur). EPA bases this judgment on a consideration of all relevant factors, including the specific factors identified at section 5(a)(2). Pursuant to TSCA section 5(a)(2), the PMN risk assessment does not serve as the basis for regulation of these SNURs, but as a valuable source of a breadth of information related to each substance's potential to threaten human health or the environment.

    Nonetheless, EPA does have concern for these chemical substances because when released to the environment, vLCCPs are expected to rapidly partition to particulates and sediments where they are anticipated to persist in the environment with half-lives of months or greater. If they do degrade over time, these substances are expected to form shorter chain chlorinated chemicals. Based on the complex starting mixtures, lack of data on biological and abiotic reactions, and potential degradation products, there is high uncertainty regarding the fate and transport of these substances. Nevertheless, by analogy to medium chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs—alkyl chain length of C14 to C17) and LCCPs, EPA expects vLCCPs and possible degradation products to be potentially highly persistent, potentially highly bioaccumulative, and potentially toxic to aquatic and sediment-dwelling organisms. Further, within the category of vLCCPs, EPA expects the shorter carbon chain range of these substances (C21 to C24) and lower chlorinated substances (degree of chlorination less than 50%) to present the greatest potential for risk, as they are expected to be the most bioaccumulative, mobile in the environment, and toxic. Transport and magnification across trophic levels may also result in toxicity to higher organisms, including fish, higher predators, and potentially humans. EPA has concerns about the potential for the vLCCPs to degrade to shorter chain chlorinated compounds, as well as concerns about potential impurities or small fractions of MCCPs and/or LCCPs.

    MCCPs and LCCPs are expected to be PBT chemicals based on the following lines of evidence: (a) The available data on MCCPs, sediment core studies, environmental fate studies, and associated calculations, indicate transformation half-lives of months to years, depending on the environmental media. Even though there are limited data on the LCCPs, biodegradation data indicated increasing stability with increasing chain length. LCCPs are also expected to have transformation half-lives comparable to, or greater than MCCPs. Therefore, MCCPs and LCCPs are expected to be very persistent; (b) The available data on MCCPs and LCCPs indicate that these substances have bioconcentration factors (BCFs) and bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) that exceed 1,000 or 5,000 liters per kilogram wet weight of tissue (L/kg ww). Therefore, MCCPs and LCCPs are expected to be very bioaccumulative; (c) The available data on MCCPs and LCCPs indicated acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organism with effects levels below 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 0.1 mg/L, depending on the species and MCCP and LCCP congener evaluated. Therefore, MCCPs and LCCPs are expected to be toxic to aquatic organisms; (d) EPA is concerned about PBT chemicals because even small releases may persist in environmental media, build up in the environment and concentrate/accumulate in organisms over time. These properties increase the potential for continual exposure, and thus risk; and (e) EPA expects there to be releases of the PMN substances to the environment resulting from distribution in commerce and during processing and all the substances' intended uses.

    EPA notes that its risk assessments for certain MCCP and LCCP PMNs have recently been made available for public comment in the Federal Register of December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79886) (FRL-9940-13).

    Comment 2: CPIA questioned the appropriateness of treating certain of the substances in the proposed SNUR as chemical analogs to LCCPs or vLCCPs, because two of the three substances covered by this SNUR are described as being “branched and linear” chloroalkanes: Alkanes, C21 to C34-branched and linear, chloro, CAS Registry Number (CASRN) 1417900-96-9 (P-12-0539), and Alkanes, C22 to C30-branched and linear, chloro, CASRN 1401974-24-0 (P-13-0107). CPIA could not find detailed compositional information about these substances in the rulemaking docket. Regardless, CPIA does not expect that anyone intending to make chlorinated paraffins would intentionally seek to make branched chloroalkanes. CP manufacturers have always used either n-paraffin or alpha-olefin feedstocks, both of which should be almost exclusively linear if they are to be used in CP manufacturing operations. To the extent that these hydrocarbon feedstocks contain branched or isoparaffin content, they are considered an impurity and something to be minimized and closely controlled. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) dossier and SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIAR) for LCCP discuss LCCP isoparaffin content in its section on impurities and states that the amount should not be more than 1-2%. This is consistent with CPIA's understanding of the feedstocks used in LCCP manufacture. Only linear chloroalkanes are desired in commercial CP products and any branched chloroalkane (i.e. chlorinated isoparaffin) content is considered an impurity and should be kept to a minimum.

    Response: EPA understands that some CPs may contain only linear chloroalkanes, but for these two “branched and linear” PMN submissions that EPA has received, the percent branching is greater than the 1-2% figure mentioned in the CPIA comments and the branching is thus part of the specific chemical name for TSCA Chemical Inventory purposes.

    Comment 3: EPA has designated the PMN/SNUR substances as very long chain chlorinated paraffin (vLCCP), with a nominal carbon chain length of C21 to C30. EPA has designated LCCP as C18 to C20 chloroalkanes, although in all other venues, including EPA's previous CP testing program, the OECD SIDS assessment, the European Union (EU) Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) dossier, and other recent assessments, LCCP has been considered as C18 to C30. Most of the recent LCCP assessments have evaluated LCCP as a category comprised of three main subcategories: C18 to C20 Liquid LCCP, C20 to C30 Liquid LCCP, and C20 to C30 Solid LCCP.

    Response: EPA recognizes that CPIA does not agree with the EPA designations for LCCP vs. vLCCP. The designation/cut-off for LCCPs and vLCCPs represents the chain lengths potentially contained in the liquid chlorinated paraffins and waxy/solid chlorinated paraffins. These designations (i.e., the differentiation between C18-20 and C20 CPs) are consistent with those in other jurisdictions, e.g., Environment Canada (see Ref. 1). There are a series of interactions that the CP industry has had with EPA over the years, including TSCA section 4 test rules on specific TSCA chemicals and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). In previous actions under TSCA and TRI, the Agency has used a different naming convention, often based on public comment from industry. However, in each action the chemical substance that was the subject of the action has been clear because information such as chemical formula has been part of the identification. Previous attempts to divide chlorinated paraffins into various categories were based primarily on industrial usage patterns and industry comment, not on toxicological information.

    Regardless of the naming conventions raised by the commenter, in reviewing the studies submitted with the PMNs in this SNUR and other PMNs, and the scientific literature more broadly, EPA has concluded that that there is a continuum of effects linked to chain length and degree of chlorination. On the one end of the spectrum are SCCPs and MCCPs; more data are available on these chain lengths, and EPA has concluded that sufficient data exists to conclude that they may be PBTs. There are also some, albeit significantly less, data on the vLCCPs, most of which appear to point to a lack of effects, but the chemical composition of the test substances was poorly characterized. Ultimately, EPA is interested in specific fate and toxicity tests on vLCCPs that elucidate the relationship between degree of chlorination and alkyl chain length. The testing schema is designed to minimize the burden of testing of complex mixtures with numerous congeners.

    Comment 4: According to the commenter, in the United States, commercial LCCP products have generally been in either the C20 to C30 liquid or C20 to C30 solid subcategories, with C18 to C20 liquid LCCP products found mostly in the European market. Given the lack of C18 to C20 liquid LCCP products in the U.S. market, CPIA does not necessarily object to EPA's division of the existing category into LCCP and vLCCP. However, CPIA, believes that drawing a “bright line” at a carbon length of C20 is questionable based on the toxicology and environmental fate data available. CPIA cites as support the conclusion of the OECD SIDS Initial Assessment Profile (SIAP) of LCCP, that “C20-30 liquid and solid LCCPs are of low concern for the environment based on their low hazard profiles. . . . Adequate screening-level data are available to characterize the environmental hazard for the purposes of the OECD HPV (High Production Volume) Chemicals Programme.”

    Response: EPA recognizes that CPIA does not agree with the EPA designations for LCCP vs. vLCCP. EPA disagrees with CPIA that linear C18 to C20 CPs are not available within the United States, as EPA has received one or more PMN submissions for these types of CPs and therefore they may be commercially available. Further, these designations are consistent with those in other jurisdictions, e.g., Environment Canada (Ref. 1). Please refer to the response to Comment 1 for the issue of hazard and PBT discussions pertaining to chain length.

    Comment 5: Limited information on EPA's assessment of vLCCP is provided in the proposed SNUR, associated Consent Order, and the rulemaking docket. Perhaps this limited information is due to the nature of this SNUR and the PMN review process.

    Response: EPA reviewed the PMNs based on the contents of the PMN and information available on analogs and in the literature. As with all PMN submissions, EPA has followed the processes, procedures and statutory provisions of TSCA section 5 for the chlorinated paraffin PMNs, including EPA's Policy Statement on PBT New Chemical Substances (64 FR 60194; November 4, 1999; FRL-6097-7). EPA's assessment of exposures and risks for these three PMN substances is provided in Unit IV of the Preamble to the section 5(e) Consent Order (available in the public docket to the proposed rule) and is also presented in the response to Comment 1. Note that EPA has recently made available assessments for certain MCCP and LCCP PMNs, in the Federal Register of December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79886) (FRL-9940-13).

    Comment 6: EPA indicates that it was unable to locate any chronic aquatic toxicity data on LCCP and as a consequence has relied solely on MCCP data. Further, EPA claims that based on these MCCP data there may be concerns regarding vLCCP's aquatic toxicity. EPA should be aware that there are both chronic fish and invertebrate toxicity data on various carbon chain length and chlorination level LCCP test materials. These were included in all of the recent reviews of LCCP, including the OECD SIDS assessment, the REACH registration dossier, and the U.K. LCCP Environmental Risk Assessment report.

    Response: As noted in the TSCA section 5(e) Consent Order signed with the PMN submitter and available in the public docket, there were no valid chronic aquatic toxicity data available for LCCPs or vLCCPs. EPA did consider the LCCP REACH Consortium aquatic toxicity database (see Attachment B in the CPIA comments), but the data were inadequate to allow EPA to identify a Concentration of Concern (COC). The studies tested concentrations in excess of the water solubility and did not analytically measure the concentrations that were in solution, which led to results orders of magnitude above the water solubility. Given the lack of reliable test data for the PMN substances listed in the SNUR, EPA used a read-across approach using MCCPs. The chronic aquatic toxicity test results and resulting COCs for MCCP data are within the estimated water solubilities and therefore these data are deemed reliable. The most reliable and acceptable studies indicate that, for vLCCPs, the predicted toxicity to aquatic organisms for acute endpoints are no effects at saturation. For the chronic toxicity endpoint, EPA used the aquatic invertebrate chronic value of 0.013 mg/L from the Thompson et al. 1997 study (Ref. 2) based on a MCCP material. This value was divided by an assessment factor of 10 to yield 0.0013 mg/L or 1.3 micrograms (μg)/L or 1.3 parts per billion (ppb).

    Comment 7: CPIA readily acknowledges that, as EPA notes, toxicity to aquatic plant life and toxicity to sediment organisms are data gaps for LCCP. There have been several different approaches used to fill these data gaps. In the case of aquatic plant life, some testing has been done on LCCP toxicity to aquatic plant life though the reliability of these data has been called into question by reviewers and the data were not deemed sufficiently valid to address the endpoint. Most assessments of LCCP have thus considered read-across data from MCCP as being adequate to fill this data gap. The data from MCCP indicate that neither MCCP, nor LCCP by analogy, are toxic to aquatic plant life. Given this, CPIA supports the use of MCCP data in the assessment of LCCP/vLCCP.

    Response: EPA agrees that toxicity to aquatic plant life is a data gap for LCCP/vLCCP and that MCCP serves as an appropriate analog in a read-across approach.

    Comment 8: For LCCP sediment toxicity and risk, previous assessments by the U.K. Environment Agency and the REACH registration dossier have extrapolated from LCCP aquatic toxicity data to sediment toxicity using the equilibrium partitioning method. This approach is detailed in Attachment C of CPIA's comments, which is a direct excerpt from the U.K. Environment Agency's (EA) LCCP assessment. Given the very low water solubility of LCCP and the very high predicted Kow, this method estimates rather high predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) for LCCP. A PNEC is functionally similar to EPA's concentration of concern (CoC) in that both are points of departure for environmental risk assessment. The comparison between the sediment PNECs derived by the EA using the equilibrium partitioning method and the sediment CoC derived by EPA using an MCCP sediment toxicity study are orders of magnitude apart. Given this large difference and the fact that both methods have limitations, CPIA thinks that this may be a data gap to consider for additional testing of vLCCP assuming chemical analysis concerns can be addressed and only if exposure/release information actually dictate a need for this testing.

    Response: EPA agrees that sediment toxicity is a data gap for vLCCPs. The most reliable and acceptable value for the toxicity to sediment invertebrate organisms is based on the MCCP material from the Thompson et al. 2002 study (Ref. 3). For vLCCPs, EPA used the 28-day sediment invertebrate Geometric Mean Acceptable Toxicant Concentration (GMATC) value of 187 mg/kg dry weight sediment as an analog approach to assess hazard. To calculate an acute concern concentration, this value is first multiplied by an acute to chronic ratio for invertebrates of 10 to yield 1,870 mg/kg dry weight sediment, and then this value is divided by an assessment factor of 5 to yield 374 mg/kg dry weight sediment. For the chronic toxicity endpoint, EPA used the 28-day sediment invertebrate GMATC of 187 mg/kg dry weight sediment also from the Thompson et al. 2002 study. This value is divided by an assessment factor of 10 to yield 18.7 mg/kg dry weight sediment.

    Comment 9: EPA states that vLCCP by analogy to MCCP may be “potentially highly persistent, potentially bioaccumulative and potentially toxic.” EPA further indicates that, “[t]ransport and magnification across trophic levels may also result in toxicity to higher organisms, including fish, higher predators, and potentially humans,” though it is not clear whether this statement is directed at vLCCP or MCCP as an analog. Regardless, EPA should be aware there has been considerable research done in recent years on the environmental fate of MCCP, including new research on biodegradation and the potential for bioaccumulation, including trophic magnification potential.

    Response: EPA has reviewed all the information cited by CPIA, including the specific biodegradation studies described in the comments and biodegradation studies on LCCPs. No persistence or bioaccumulation data were available or submitted to EPA for the commercial Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products and Biological materials (UVCB) multicomponent substances described in the PMNs. In the absence of data on the commercial UVCB substances, EPA used data on their components, analogs and used a read-across approach. EPA notes that close analogs of MCCPs are the short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) which have been proposed for addition to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

    Comment 10: Given the available data, CPIA believes that any analogy to MCCP for vLCCP must consider that while lower chlorinated CP substances may have somewhat greater capacity to bioaccumulate—though bioaccumulation will also decrease significantly with increasing carbon chain length—these same lower chlorinated CPs show a greater potential to biodegrade. In fact, MCCP constituents up to 50% chlorination have been found to be readily biodegradable and therefore are not persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals (PBTs). Higher chlorinated MCCP constituents also showed significant potential to biodegrade though the results did not reach the “ready” criteria. Perhaps even more telling is the fact that field studies have not shown MCCP to biomagnify across trophic levels (Ref. 4). CPIA believes that vLCCP, which is less soluble in water and less bioavailable than MCCP, will have even less potential to move up through the troposphere and biomagnify. This conclusion was similarly reached by the U.K. Environment Agency (Ref. 5), the OECD (Ref. 6), and the European Chemical Bureau (ECB) PBT Working Group (Ref. 7).

    Response: EPA has reviewed all the information cited by CPIA including the specific bioaccumulation/biomagnification studies described in the comments. No persistence or bioaccumulation data were submitted for the commercial UVCB multicomponent substances described in the PMNs. In the absence of data on the commercial UVCB multicomponent substance, EPA used data on components of that substance, structural analogs and a read-across approach. Although bioaccumulation data are lacking with vLCCPs, there is still concern for the presence of lower chain length and moderately chlorinated components in the vLCCP commercial UVCB multicomponent substance that have the potential to be both persistent and bioaccumulative. EPA considered more recent reviews of the bioaccumulation potential of MCCPs by Thompson and Vaughn (Ref. 4) and Arnot (Ref. 8) in making the determination that MCCPs may be very bioaccumulative. The framework for assessing bioaccumulation outlined by Gobas et al. (Ref. 9) describes a preferred data hierarchy that places field Trophic Magnification Factor (TMF) studies at the top. EPA recognizes that there are significant uncertainties associated with the available TMF data for MCCPs. In the absence of such data, the framework outlines the use of bioconcentration factors (BCFs), bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), and biomagnification factors (BMFs) to be considered with caution. EPA believes that its review of available data on the bioaccumulation potential of MCCPs is consistent with the approach described by Gobas et al. (Ref. 9) and that the data support its finding that MCCPs may be very bioaccumulative and by analogy so may vLCCPs.

    Comment 11: CPIA is concerned that EPA's proposed testing approach for vLCCP in the proposed SNUR (Attachment A of CPIA's comments) fails to consider the highly complex nature of the LCCP/vLCCP UVCB substances and the analytical limitations inherent to this complex composition. For example, even a single carbon-chain length straight-chain chloroalkane, will have tens of thousands or more possible isomers. Tomy et al. (Ref. 10) calculated that for a C13 chloroalkane at 60% chlorination by weight, the total number of possible isomers is 3,549, even assuming no more than one chlorine atom bound to an individual carbon atom. This number of theoretical isomers more than doubles with each added carbon number, suggesting that by C21, the lowest carbon chain length that EPA has proposed testing, this test material could have hundreds of thousands of possible isomers.

    Response: EPA understands the complexity of vLCCPs and therefore stipulates under the consent order for the PMN substances the testing of three specific chain lengths and chlorination levels. EPA expects that a single chain length at a specific chlorination level can be produced. The purpose of the sequence of testing, i.e., biodegradation testing and identification of degradation products followed by bioaccumulation testing and benthic toxicity testing, is to use the results of the biodegradation tests to identify biodegradation products. The selection of three less complex congener PMN surrogates for testing reduces the analytical complexities associated with characterization of the test substance and identification of products formed during biodegradation testing.

    Comment 12. Current guidance from manufacturers indicates that vLCCP substances should not be released to surface water and/or poured down the drain. When this guidance is applied to exposure models, the predicted releases levels to surface water and corresponding concentrations in sediment are below the levels of concern.

    Response: While the SNUR is not based on EPA's risk assessment, EPA notes that information regarding releases of vLCCPs was submitted to EPA by the PMN submitter of these three SNUR substances and is used in the risk assessment. EPA's risk assessment for the PMN substances indicated that releases of the substances may occur and that without the less than 1 weight percent of chlorinated paraffins with an alkyl chain ≤ 20 manufacturing restriction, those releases may pose an unreasonable risk to the environment. Further, apart from any risk resulting from releases assessed for the PMN chemical substance, chlorinated paraffins with alkyl chain lengths ≤ 20 are very persistent and very bioaccumulative toxic chemical substances. Thus a SNUR is important because it gives EPA an opportunity to review and evaluate data on the significant new use before it commences. These significant new use may have release and exposure profiles that are different from that considered in the PMN.

    To the extent that the commenter is suggesting that the predicted releases to surface water do not present a risk and thus do not support a significant new determination, EPA notes that a significant new use determination is not based on risk.

    VI. Applicability of the Significant New Use Designation

    If uses begun after the proposed rule was published were considered ongoing rather than new, any person could defeat the SNUR by initiating the significant new use before the final rule was issued. Therefore EPA has designated the date of publication of the proposed rule as the cutoff date for determining whether the new use is ongoing. Consult the Federal Register notice of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376, FRL 3658-5) for a more detailed discussion of the cutoff date for ongoing uses.

    Any person who began commercial manufacture or processing of the chemical substances identified in this rule for any of the significant new uses designated in the proposed SNUR after the date of publication of the proposed SNUR, must stop that activity before the effective date of the final rule. Persons who ceased those activities will have to first comply with all applicable SNUR notification requirements and wait until the notice review period, including any extensions, expires, before engaging in any activities designated as significant new uses. If a person were to meet the conditions of advance compliance under 40 CFR 721.45(h), the person would be considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those activities.

    VII. Test Data and Other Information

    EPA recognizes that TSCA section 5 does not require the development of any particular test data before submission of a SNUN. The two exceptions are:

    1. Development of test data is required where the chemical substance subject to the SNUR is also subject to a test rule under TSCA section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)(1)).

    2. Development of test data may be necessary where the chemical substance has been listed under TSCA section 5(b)(4) (see TSCA section 5(b)(2)).

    In the absence of a TSCA section 4 test rule or a TSCA section 5(b)(4) listing covering the chemical substance, persons are required only to submit test data in their possession or control and to describe any other data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (see § 720.50). However, upon review of PMNs and SNUNs, the Agency has the authority to require appropriate testing.

    Recommended testing that would address the criteria of concern of § 721.170 can be found in Unit IV. of the proposed rule. Descriptions of tests are provided only for informational purposes. EPA strongly encourages persons, before performing any testing, to consult with the Agency pertaining to protocol selection.

    SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on the following:

    • Human exposure and environmental release that may result from the significant new use of the chemical substances.

    • Potential benefits of the chemical substances.

    • Information on risks posed by the chemical substances compared to risks posed by potential substitutes.

    VIII. SNUN Submissions

    According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN must comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as persons submitting a PMN, including submission of test data on health and environmental effects as described in § 720.50. SNUNs must be on EPA Form No. 7710-25, generated using e-PMN software, and submitted to the Agency in accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 721.25 and 720.40. E-PMN software is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/how-submit-e-pmn.

    IX. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substances in the rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0390

    X. References

    The following is a listing of those documents used to prepare the preamble to this final rule. Additional information for this final rule can be located under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399, which is available for inspection as specified under ADDRESSES.

    1. Environment Canada, August 2008. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 Follow-up Report on a PSL1 Assessment for Which Data Were Insufficient to Conclude Whether the Substances Were “Toxic” to the Environment and to the Human Health: Chlorinated Paraffins. 2. Thompson, R.S., N.J. Williams, and E. Gillings. 1997. Chlorinated Paraffin (52% Chlorinated, C 14-C 17 ): Chronic Toxicity to Daphnia Magna. AstraZeneca Confidential Report, BL 5791/B. 3. Thompson, R.S., D.V. Smyth, and E. Gillings. 2002. Medium-Chain Chlorinated Paraffin (52% Chlorinated, C 14-17 ): Effects in Sediment on the Survival, Growth and Sexual Development of the Freshwater Amphipod, Hyalella Azteca. AstraZeneca Confidential Report BL7469/B. 4. Thompson, Roy and Martin Vaughn. 2014. Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs): A review of bioaccumulation potential in the aquatic environment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Volume 10, Issue 1, pages 78-86, January 2014. 5. U.K. Environment Agency (EA). 2009. Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Long-Chain Chlorinated Paraffins. January 2009. 6. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2009. SIDS Initial Assessment Report (SIAR) and SIDS Initial Assessment Profile (SIAP) for Long Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (LCCPs). Reviewed and approved at SIAM-29, October 20-23, 2009. 7. European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) PBT Working Group. 2007. Results of the Evaluation of the PBT/vPvB Properties of Paraffin waxes and Hydrocarbon waxes, chlor; EC number 264-150-0; CAS number 63449-39-8. PBT List No. 110. September 11, 2007. 8. Arnot, Jon. 2013. Comments on Preliminary Bioaccumulation Assessment of Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs): Prepared for the MCCP REACH Consortium. April 30, 2013. 9. Gobas, Frank APC; Watze de Wolf; Lawrence P. Burkhard; Eric Verbruggen; Kathleen Plotzke. 2009. Revisiting Bioaccumulation Criteria for POPs and PBT Assessments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Mangement 5(4): 624-637. 10. Tomy, Gregg T.; Gary A. Stern, Derek C.G. Muir, Aaron T. Fisk, Chris D. Cymbalisty, and John B. Westmore. 1997. Quantifying C10-C13 Polychloroalkanes in Environmental Samples by High-Resolution Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Negative Ion High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 69: 2762-2771. XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866

    This final rule establishes SNURs for chemical substances that were the subject of PMNs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    According to PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements contained in this final rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This Information Collection Request (ICR) was previously subject to public notice and comment prior to OMB approval, and given the technical nature of the table, EPA finds that further notice and comment to amend it is unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is “good cause” under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to amend this table without further notice and comment.

    The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to RFA section 605(b) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:

    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    2. The SNUR submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.

    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this final rule.

    This final rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit VIII. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:

    • A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.

    • Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300.

    Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule. As such, EPA has determined that this action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

    F. Executive Order 13175

    This action does not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this final rule.

    G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

    H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, NTTAA section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

    J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    XII. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Maria J. Doa, Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Therefore, 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 are amended as follows: PART 9—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

    2. In § 9.1, add the following sections in numerical order under the undesignated center heading “Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances” to read as follows:
    § 9.1 OMB Approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 40 CFR citation OMB Control No. *    *    *    *    * Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances *    *    *    *    * 721.10673 2070-0012 721.10674 2070-0012 721.10675 2070-0012 *    *    *    *    *
    PART 721—[AMENDED] 3. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

    4. Add § 721.10673 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10673 Alkanes, C21-34-branched and linear, chloro.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as alkanes, C21-34-branched and linear, chloro (PMN P-12-539; CAS No. 1417900-96-9) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j)(manufacture of the PMN substance with less than 1 weight percent of chlorinated paraffins with an alkyl chain ≤ 20) and (p) (1,200,000 kg, 14,100,000 kg, 59,100,000 kg, 78,400,000 kg, and 86,100,000 kg of the aggregate of the PMN substances P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109, from the March 19, 2013 effective date of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109).).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    5. Add § 721.10674 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10674 Alkanes, C22-30-branched and linear, chloro.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as alkanes, C22-30-branched and linear, chloro (PMN P-13-107; CAS No. 1401947-24-0) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j)(manufacture of the PMN substance with less than 1 weight percent of chlorinated paraffins with an alkyl chain ≤ 20) and (p) (1,200,000 kg, 14,100,000 kg, 59,100,000 kg, 78,400,000 kg, and 86,100,000 kg of the aggregate of the PMN substances P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109, from the March 19, 2013 effective date of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    6. Add § 721.10675 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 721.10675 Alkanes, C24-28, chloro.

    (a) Chemical substance and significant new uses subject to reporting. (1) The chemical substance identified as alkanes, C24-28, chloro (PMN P-13-109; CAS No. 1402738-52-6) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

    (2) The significant new uses are:

    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. Requirements as specified in § 721.80 (j) (manufacture of the PMN substance with less than 1 weight percent of chlorinated paraffins with an alkyl chain ≤ 20) and (p) (1,200,000 kg, 14,100,000 kg, 59,100,000 kg, 78,400,000 kg, and 86,100,000 kg of the aggregate of the PMN substances P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109, from the March 19, 2013 effective date of the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for P-12-539, P-13-107, and P-13-109).

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (b) Specific requirements. The provisions of subpart A of this part apply to this section except as modified by this paragraph.

    (1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping requirements as specified in § 721.125 (a), (b), (c), and (i) are applicable to manufacturers and processors of this substance.

    (2) Limitations or revocation of certain notification requirements. The provisions of § 721.185 apply to this section.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02952 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 70 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0594; FRL-9942-12-Region 3] Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Program Revision; West Virginia AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Title V Operating Permits Program (found in West Virginia's regulations at 45CSR30) submitted by the State of West Virginia. The revision increases West Virginia's annual emission fees for its Title V Operating Permit Program to $28 per ton of emissions of a regulated pollutant from an individual source subject to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permit Program. EPA is approving the revision to West Virginia's Title V Operating Permit Program in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0594. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (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 through www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Wentworth, (215) 814-2183, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On October 5, 2015 (80 FR 60110), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a revision to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permit Program. The formal program revision was submitted by the State of West Virginia on June 17, 2015.

    II. Summary of Title V Operating Permit Program Revision

    In the June 17, 2015 program revision submittal, West Virginia included revisions to 45CSR30.8 to increase West Virginia's annual emission fees for its Title V Operating Permit Program. West Virginia increased the annual fees to $28 per ton of emissions of a regulated pollutant from an individual source subject to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permit Program. The previous rate in 45CSR30.8 was $18 per ton of regulated pollutant. This revised fee per ton became effective on May 1, 2015 and replaced the prior fee, $18 per ton, which was effective July 1, 1995 through April 30, 2015.1 As discussed in the NPR, without this fee increase, West Virginia anticipated that funds would not be sufficient to sustain its Title V Operating Permit Program in a manner consistent with state and federal requirements. In the NPR, the EPA proposed to approve the revision increasing annual Title V fees that the owners or operators of Title V facilities in West Virginia must pay pursuant to 45CSR30.8. The EPA explained that the revision met requirements in section 502 of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.9 for the collection of sufficient Title V fees to cover permit program implementation and oversight costs. The emission fees apply to emissions up to 4,000 tons of any regulated pollutant. However, the EPA's NPR inadvertently misstated that the revision to 45CSR30.8 would increase fees to $25 per ton of regulated pollutant, rather than the correct figure of $28 per ton of regulated pollutant. This error in the NPR by the EPA was inadvertent and does not affect the rationale for the EPA's proposed approval of the Title V permit fee increase as the EPA's evaluation for the NPR was based on 45CSR30.8 which provided for the increase to $28 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted.2

    1 On July 1, 1995, the $18 per ton fee replaced West Virginia's Title V operating permit “transition fee” of $15 per ton emitted from a source which had previously been in effect for the Title V Operating Permit Program.

    2 In fact, the additional three dollars per ton of regulated pollutant emitted by sources provides additional funds to support the implementation of West Virginia's permit program for Title V of the CAA in accordance with requirements in the CAA and in 40 CFR 70.9.

    Other specific requirements of the program revision and the rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.

    III. Comments and EPA's Responses

    Comment: The EPA received one comment during the public comment period on the proposed approval of the revision to West Virginia's Title V Operating Permit Program. The comment was submitted on behalf of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP). In the comment letter, the WVDEP noted that the new fee provisions contained in the revision to 45CSR30 as part of WVDEP's June 17, 2015 submission to EPA was $28 per ton of regulated pollutants as emitted by individual sources subject to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permit Program. The WVDEP noted that the EPA's NPR incorrectly stated the new fee per ton of regulated pollutant emitted was $25 instead of $28 per ton emitted.3

    3 The WVDEP also corrected background information presented in the NPR about historical Title V Operating Permit Program fees in West Virginia. Specifically, WVDEP noted that the $18-per-ton fee was not the “initial” fee established in 1994. The program initially had a $15-per-ton transition fee, which was replaced effective July 1, 1995 by the $18-per-ton fee that has been effective until recently. The EPA thanks WVDEP for this clarification, which did not affect our analysis or proposed conclusion that the permit fee revision met CAA requirements for the Title V permit programs.

    Response: The EPA appreciates WVDEP's comment and acknowledges it inadvertently stated in the NPR that the annual fee per ton of regulated pollutant emitted for an individual source subject to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permit Program was increased to $25 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted. WVDEP correctly noted in its comments that 45CSR30.8 increased the fee for emissions to $28 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted from a Title V source. This increase from $18 per ton to $28 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted was effective on May 1, 2015. WVDEP's June 17, 2015 submittal of the revised 45CSR30.8 to the EPA correctly indicated the new fee per ton of regulated pollutant emitted was $28. EPA evaluated the Title V program revision after reviewing 45CSR30.8 and evaluating the permit fee increase at $28 per ton emitted. The EPA's error in the NPR in incorrectly referring to new fees of $25 per ton emitted was inadvertent and did not affect our analysis or proposed conclusion that the permit fee revision met requirements in the CAA for Title V permit programs.

    The WVDEP comment letter corrects the EPA's error and clarifies that the correct fee per ton of regulated pollutant emitted by a Title V permitted source is $28 per ton. As noted previously, the revision to 45CSR30.8 increasing the permit fee from $18 per ton to $28 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted meets requirements in section 502 of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.9 for the collection of sufficient Title V fees to cover permit program implementation and oversight costs. The EPA's determination that West Virginia's Title V Operating Permit Program continues to meet obligations to collect sufficient fees to implement its Title V program is not altered by our inadvertent reference to $25 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted instead of $28 per ton emitted as our analysis was based on the revised 45CSR30.8 which listed the correct fee as $28 per ton.

    The EPA also finds no further comment period is needed to address the inadvertent reference to the per ton fee increase. The EPA's finding that the revised fees in 45CSR30.8 meet requirements in section 502 of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.9 was explained in the NPR, and the specific finding that the $28 per ton meets requirements for Title V permit fees to fund a Title V program is a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. No additional notice or opportunity to comment is necessary where, as here, the final rule is “in character with the original scheme,” and does not “substantially depart [] from the terms or substance” of the proposal. Chocolate Mfrs. Ass'n v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir. 1985). “[A] final rule will be deemed to be the logical outgrowth of a proposed rule if a new round of notice and comment would not provide commentators with their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the agency might find convincing.” Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

    Notwithstanding the NPR's erroneous description of the revised fee being $25 per ton of regulated pollutant, the EPA's determination about the sufficiency of this fee was in fact based on our evaluation of the slightly larger $28-per-ton fee. The NPR also cited the correct provision of West Virginia law, which also would have confirmed to potential commenters that the state's proposed fee increase was to $28 per ton. The docket similarly included information clarifying that the proposed revision would increase certain fees to $28 per ton of regulated pollutants.4

    4 To take just one example, the docket included a copy of the rule clearly showing that the revision was to $28 per ton. See EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0594-0006 at 53 (showing relevant changes to West Virginia's rule).

    Accordingly, a supplemental notice clarifying the per-ton fee would not provide any commentators with a first occasion to offer any new or different criticisms of WVDEP's Title V permit fees. Nor would any such criticism convince EPA to alter our conclusion. As stated in the NPR, WVDEP found its permit fee of $18 per ton was insufficient to allow adequate implementation of its Title V Operating Permit Program. After internal analysis, WVDEP concluded it needed the additional revenue from permit fees at $28 per ton emitted to fund sufficiently its Title V Operating Permit Program, and EPA concurs with that conclusion. Further opportunity for comment would not provide any opportunity for criticism of West Virginia's new permit fee which the EPA would find convincing. Thus, our approval of West Virginia's Title V Operating Permits Program including the revision to 45CSR30.8 is final as a “logical outgrowth” of the proposed approval announced in the NPR.

    IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the June 17, 2015 Title V Operating Permit Program revision submitted by the State of West Virginia to increase Title V permit fees paid by owners or operators of Title V sources in West Virginia from $18 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted to $28 per ton of regulated pollutant emitted. The revision meets requirements in section 503 of the CAA and of 40 CFR 70.9.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • 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, this rule related to West Virginia's Title V fees does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the program is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 12, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action which approves the June 17, 2015 program revision submittal by the State of West Virginia as a revision to the West Virginia Title V Operating Permits Program may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 28, 2016. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III. PART 70—STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS 1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to the entry for West Virginia to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 70—Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permit Programs West Virginia

    (g) The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection submitted a program revision on June 17, 2015; approval effective on May 1, 2015.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02831 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 97 [FRL-9942-27-OAR] Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2015 Compliance Year AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule; notice of data availability (NODA).

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of emission allowance allocations to certain units under the new unit set-aside (NUSA) provisions of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) federal implementation plans (FIPs). EPA has completed final calculations for the second round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2015 compliance year of the CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 Trading Programs. EPA has posted spreadsheets showing the second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances to new units as well as the allocations to existing units of the remaining CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances not allocated to new units in either round of the 2015 NUSA allocation process. EPA will record the allocated CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances in sources' Allowance Management System (AMS) accounts by February 15, 2016.

    DATES:

    February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or [email protected] or to Kenon Smith at (202) 343-9164 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the CSAPR FIPs, a portion of each state budget for each of the four CSAPR trading programs is reserved as a NUSA from which allowances are allocated to eligible units through an annual one- or two-round process. EPA has described the CSAPR NUSA allocation process in five NODAs previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 30988, June 1, 2015; 80 FR 44882, July 28, 2015; 80 FR 55061, September 14, 2015; 80 FR 69883, November 12, 2015; 80 FR 77591, December 15, 2015). In the most recent of these previous NODAs, EPA provided notice of preliminary lists of new units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances and provided an opportunity for the public to submit objections.

    EPA received no objections to the preliminary lists of new units eligible for second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, or SO2 Group 2 allowances whose availability was announced in the December 15 NODA. EPA is therefore making second-round 2015 NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances to the new units identified on these lists in accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 97.412(a)(9) and (12), 97.612(a)(9) and (12), and 97.712(a)(9) and (12).

    As described in the December 15 NODA, any allowances remaining in the CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 NUSAs for a given state and control period after the second round of NUSA allocations to new units is completed are to be allocated to the existing units in the state according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 97.412(a)(10) and (12), 97.612(a)(10) and (12), and 97.712(a)(10) and (12). EPA has determined that CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances do remain in the NUSAs for a number of states following completion of second-round 2015 NUSA allocations; accordingly, EPA is allocating these allowances to existing units. The NUSA allowances are generally allocated to the existing units in proportion to the allocations previously made to the existing units under 40 CFR 97.411(a)(1), 97.611(a)(1), and 97.711(a)(1), adjusted for rounding.

    Under 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10), 97.612(b)(10), and 97.712(b)(10), any allowances remaining in the CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 Indian country NUSAs for a given state and control period after the second round of Indian country NUSA allocations to new units are added to the NUSA for that state or are made available for allocation by the state pursuant to an approved SIP revision. No new units eligible for allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances from any 2015 Indian country NUSA have been identified, and no state has an approved SIP revision governing allocation of 2015 CSAPR allowances. The Indian country NUSA allowances are therefore being added to the NUSAs for the respective states and are included in the pools of allowances that are being allocated to existing units under 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10) and (12), 97.612(b)(10) and (12), and 97.712(b)(10) and (12).

    The final unit-by-unit data and allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOx_Annual_2nd_Round_Final_Data_New_Units”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_SO2_2nd_Round_Final_Data_New_Units”, “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_NOx_Annual_2nd_Round_Final_Data_Existing_Units”, and “CSAPR_NUSA_2015_SO2_2nd_Round_Final_Data_Existing_Units”, available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html.

    Pursuant to CSAPR's allowance recordation timing requirements, the allocated NUSA allowances will be recorded in sources' AMS accounts by February 15, 2016. EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that NUSA allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and SO2 Group 2 allowances are subject to potential correction if a unit to which NUSA allowances have been allocated for a given compliance year is not actually an affected unit as of January 1 of the compliance year.1

    1See 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.611(c), and 97.711(c).

    (Authority: 40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.611(b), and 97.711(b).)

    Dated: February 1, 2016. Reid P. Harvey, Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02955 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0672; FRL-9939-59] Diflubenzuron; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of diflubenzuron in or on multiple commodities which are identified and discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective February 12, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 12, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0672, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0672 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 12, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0672, 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 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.

    II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E8306) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.377 be amended by: (1) Establishing tolerances in for the combined residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide) and its metabolites 4-chlorophenlyurea and 4-chloroaniline, in or on the raw agricultural commodities carrot, roots at 0.2 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.5 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.5 ppm; plum, prune, dried at 0.5 ppm; nut, tree group 14-12 at 0.2 ppm; pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10 B at 1.0 ppm, and cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.2 ppm; (2) upon the approval of these tolerances, removing established tolerances in or on fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry at 0.07 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.06 ppm; pistachio at 0.06 ppm; pepper at 1.0 ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm; (3) establishing regional tolerances for the combined residues of diflubenzuron and its metabolites 4-chlorophenlyurea and 4-chloroaniline in or on the raw agricultural commodities alfalfa, forage at 6 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 20 ppm; and alfalfa, seed at 0.9 ppm; and (4) modifying the existing tolerances in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Egg from 0.05 to 0.15 ppm; poultry, fat from 0.05 to 0.15 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts from 0.05 to 0.06 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Chemtura Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A second notice of filing for the same petition (PP 4E8306) and same uses was inadvertently published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75449) (FRL-9939-55). This notice of filing contained the same information as the previously published notice of filing. Comments were received in response to both notices of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the levels at which some of the tolerances are being established. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

    III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for diflubenzuron including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with diflubenzuron follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

    For diflubenzuron, the hemopoietic system is the target site with effects including increased sulfhemoglobin and/or methemoglobin levels in rat and dog studies. In subchronic and chronic feeding studies, the primary endpoint of concern was methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia. These effects were evident in both sexes of mice, rats, and dogs and were produced by more than one route of administration in rats (i.e., oral, dermal and inhalation). The general consequence of methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia is the impairment of the oxygen transportation capacity of the blood, which is generally known to be caused by aromatic amines in both humans and animals. Degradates of diflubenzuron with aromatic amines, CPU (4-chlorophenylurea) and PCA (4-chloroaniline), are also included in the diflubenzuron non-cancer risk assessment. Monuron, an analog of CPU, does not affect methemoglobin formation but does produce tumors in the liver and kidneys of male rats. The non-cancer toxicities of CPU and PCA are understood. PCA is similar in potency to diflubenzuron on methemoglobin formation, while CPU is less toxic than PCA. Therefore, the non-cancer assessment will include diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA, and additional toxicity studies are not required on CPU and PCA.

    The toxicity data provide no indication of an increased susceptibility to rats or to rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure to diflubenzuron. Developmental and reproduction studies in rats and rabbits indicate a very low hazard potential for adverse effects. Developmental studies were tested at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) without apparent effects in both dams and the fetuses. The reproduction study indicated that effects in offspring occurred at doses that were higher than the doses producing effects in parents. The requirements for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were waived because there are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the diflubenzuron database. The toxicity profile of diflubenzuron shows that the principal toxic effects are the formation of methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia in the blood. An immunotoxicity study has been reviewed and immunotoxicity was not observed above the limit dose.

    The Agency concluded that diflubenzuron is not carcinogenic in humans based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. PCA, a plant metabolite of diflubenzuron, tested positive for splenic tumors in male rats and hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in male mice in a National Toxicology Program (NTP) study.

    Therefore, EPA has classified PCA as a probable human carcinogen. CPU is the major degradate found in water and is a significant metabolite in milk. CPU is structurally related to monuron (N,Ndimethyl-CPU), a compound producing tumors of the kidney and liver in male rats. EPA has assumed CPU is a probable human carcinogen as well. However, based on methemoglobinemia observed only at high doses of monuron, a compound similar to CPU and PCA, the non-carcinogenic risk assessment will include diflubenzuron, CPU, and PCA.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by diflubenzuron as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Diflubenzuron: Human Health Risk Assessment for an Amended Section 3 Registration for Carrot, Peach Subgroup 12-12B, Plum Subgroup 12-12C, Pepper/Eggplant Subgroup 8-10B, Cottonseed Subgroup 20C, Alfalfa (Regional Restrictions) and R175 Crop Group Conversion for Tree Nut Group 14-12” on page 45 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0672.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diflubenzuron used for human risk assessment is discussed in Table 1 in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of January 31, 2014 (79 FR 5294) (FRL-9904-27).

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to diflubenzuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing diflubenzuron tolerances in 40 CFR 180.377. EPA assessed dietary exposures from diflubenzuron in food as follows:

    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for diflubenzuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat in America” (NHANES/WWEIA) from 2003 through 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used the assumption that diflubenzuron residues are present in most commodities at tolerance levels (including tolerances previously established as well as those established in this action) and that 100% of all crops are treated. Average field trial residues were assumed for grapefruit, lemon, and orange. Tolerances include residues of diflubenzuron, PCA, and CPU.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that diflubenzuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans. However, the metabolites CPU and PCA are considered probable carcinogens and have Q*s assigned to them. Individual cancer dietary exposure analyses were conducted for each metabolite. For PCA, average percent crop treated (PCT) was used for some commodities. One-half the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) was used for estimating PCA residues on the majority of crops because most crops did not contain detectable residues of PCA. Average field trial residue was used for mushrooms. The CPU cancer dietary analysis focused on CPU residues in milk because metabolism studies indicate that diflubenzuron metabolizes to CPU in milk. EPA assumed that 100% of milk commodities contained CPU at 1/2 the LOQ. One-half the LOQ was used since detectable residues of CPU were not found in the feeding study.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:

    • Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.

    • Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.

    • Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.

    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.

    For the cancer dietary exposure analysis, the Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows:

    Soybeans (1%), peppers (2.5%), oranges (10%), tangerines (10%), grapefruit (25%), pear (5%), apricot (10%), peach (5%), almond, (10%), pecan (2.5%), rice (2.5%), wheat (1%), cotton (1%), artichoke (45%), peanut (10%), lemon (1%), plum (5%), and walnut (2.5%).

    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6 to 7 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.

    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which diflubenzuron may be applied in a particular area.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for diflubenzuron and CPU in drinking water. PCA is only a minor metabolite in the environment and residues are not expected to be present in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of diflubenzuron. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator model (SWCC) for surface water the Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWC) of 1.3 microgram/Liter (μg/L) (including diflubenzuron and CPU) was used to assess chronic non-cancer dietary risk. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model-Groundwater (PRZM-GW) model for ground water the cancer risk for CPU was assessed using the EDWC of 8.02 μg/L.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Diflubenzuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA has not found diflubenzuron to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and diflubenzuron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that diflubenzuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Based on the available developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and the reproduction study, there is no increased susceptibility to fetuses exposed in utero. There was no indication of abnormalities in fetal development in the developmental toxicity studies in either rats or rabbits at the maternal limit doses of 1,000 mg/kg/day. In addition, there was no evidence of sensitivity following pre- and/or post-natal exposure in a two-generation reproduction study in rats.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicological database for diflubenzuron is adequate for risk assessment. The non-cancer toxicity of CPU and PCA is well understood. CPU is less toxic and does not affect methemoglobin. PCA does cause methemoglobin formation but is similar in potency to diflubenzuron. Therefore, assuming equal toxicity of CPU and PCA to diflubenzuron is health protective, additional toxicity studies are not required on the metabolites.

    ii. There are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the diflubenzuron database; therefore, there is no need for any neurotoxicity studies.

    iii. There is no evidence that diflubenzuron results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

    iv. The dietary exposure assessment uses conservative assumptions which will not underestimate dietary exposure and EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to diflubenzuron in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by diflubenzuron.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, diflubenzuron is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to diflubenzuron from food and water will utilize 39% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for diflubenzuron.

    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, diflubenzuron is not registered for any use patterns that would result in short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for diflubenzuron.

    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, diflubenzuron is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans. However, the metabolites CPU and PCA are considered probable carcinogens and have Q*s assigned to them. Individual cancer dietary exposure analyses were conducted for each metabolite. The cancer assessment for PCA includes food only (it is not expected to be present in drinking water). The cancer assessment for CPU includes milk and water only. For PCA, the cancer dietary exposure estimate for the U.S. population is 1.3 × 10−6. For CPU, the cancer dietary exposure estimate for the U.S. population is 2.8 × 10−6.

    EPA generally considers cancer risks in the range of 10−6 or less to be negligible. The precision which can be assumed for cancer risk estimates is best described by rounding to the nearest integral order of magnitude on the log scale; for example, risks falling between 3 × 10−7 and 3 × 10−6 are expressed as risks in the range of 10−6.

    Considering the precision with which cancer hazard can be estimated, the conservativeness of low-dose linear extrapolation, and the rounding procedure described above, cancer risk should generally not be assumed to exceed the benchmark level of concern of the range of 10−6 until the calculated risk exceeds approximately 3 × 10−6. This is particularly the case where some conservatism is maintained in the exposure assessment. Although the PCA and CPU exposure risk assessment are refined, they retain significant conservatism in that residues in food were estimated at 1/2 LOQ even though no residues were detected in field trials and feeding studies, and for some commodities EPA assumed 100 PCT. Accordingly, EPA has concluded the cancer risk for all existing diflubenzuron uses, and the uses associated with the tolerances established in this action fall within the range of 1 × 10−6 and are thus negligible.

    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to diflubenzuron residues.

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement analytical methods are available for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of diflubenzuron and its metabolites in crop and livestock commodities. Three enforcement methods for diflubenzuron are published in PAM, Vol. II as Methods I, II, and III. Method I is a GC/ECD method that determines diflubenzuron in plants as derivatized 4-chloroaniline (PCA). Method II is a GC/ECD method that can separately determine residues of diflubenzuron, 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) and PCA in eggs, milk, and livestock tissues, each as derivatized PCA. Method III is an HPLC/UV method that determines diflubenzuron per se in eggs, milk, and livestock tissues. All three methods have undergone successful Agency validations.

    B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

    The Codex has established MRLs for diflubenzuron in or on peach and nectarine at 0.5 ppm which is the same as the tolerance in the United States for the peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.50 ppm; a tolerance on plums at 0.5 ppm which is the same as the U.S. tolerance for the plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.5 ppm; and a tolerance on tree nuts at 0.2 ppm which is the same as the U.S. tolerance for the tree nut group 14-12 at 0.20 ppm, and which was raised to harmonize with Codex.

    The Codex has established MRLs for diflubenzuron on chili peppers at 3 ppm, dried chili peppers at 20 ppm, and sweet peppers at 0.7 ppm which are different from the tolerances established in the U.S. for diflubenzuron on the pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B at 1.0 ppm. The pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10B covers both bell and non-bell peppers and the Codex MRLs split them out into two separate tolerances which the U.S. does not do because the petition was for the entire subgroup. Based on the residue data submitted and reviewed for this action, it would not be appropriate for the U.S. tolerance to harmonize with either the chili pepper MRL of 3 ppm or the sweet pepper MRL of 0.7 ppm. Also, in regards to the dried chili pepper MRL, this is not expected to be an issue since the U.S. does not set tolerances on dried fruits and vegetables, but instead the processed food is considered to be the whole processed commodity after compensating for or reconstituting the commodity's normal moisture content.

    C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the February 11, 2015 Notice of Filing, however, it related to a different chemical than diflubenzuron and therefore is not relevant to this action. Two comments were received in response to the December 2, 2015 Notice of Filing. One commenter opposed residues of this pesticide on food and argued that EPA should deny the petition. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework. The second comment stated that “without long term studies of its effects on the environment and the toxic effects on aquatic invertebrates, then there should be a slight reduction in ppm of diflubenzuron used on crops.” This comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the diflubenzuron tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment.

    D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on an evaluation of the residue data, the Agency modified the levels at which tolerances were proposed for the existing tolerances for egg, poultry fat, and poultry meat byproducts. In addition, the Agency determined that a separate tolerance is not required for the commodity “plum, prune, dried” since residues are not found to concentrate on prunes. Lastly, some of the tolerances levels were modified to reflect the correct significant figures.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established, modified and removed for residues of diflubenzuron N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide) and its metabolites 4-chlorophenlyurea and 4-chloroaniline, as follows:

    Under 180.377(a)(1) a tolerance is established for the cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.20 ppm; existing tolerances are changed for egg to 0.07 ppm; poultry, fat to 0.10 ppm; and poultry, meat byproducts to 0.08 ppm; and the existing tolerance for cotton, undelinted seed at 0.2 ppm is removed as unnecessary.

    Under 180.377(a)(2), tolerances are established in or on the raw agricultural commodities carrot, roots at 0.20 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 0.50 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.50 ppm; nut, tree group 14-12 at 0.20 ppm; the pepper/eggplant subgroup 8-10 B at 1.0 ppm; and the following existing tolerances are removed as unnecessary: Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry at 0.07 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.06 ppm; pistachio at 0.06 ppm; and pepper at 1.0 ppm.

    Under 180.377(c) regional tolerances are established for the combined residues of diflubenzuron and its metabolites 4-chlorophenlyurea and 4-chloroaniline in or on the raw agricultural commodities alfalfa, forage at 6 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 20 ppm; and alfalfa, seed at 0.9 ppm.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 3, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.377:
    a. Remove the entries in the table in paragraph (a)(1) for “Cotton, undelinted seed,” “Egg,” “Poultry, fat,” and “Poultry, meat byproducts.” b. Add alphabetically the entries for “Cottonseed subgroup 20C,” “Egg,” “Poultry, fat,” and “Poultry, meat byproducts” to the table in paragraph (a)(1). c. Remove the entries in the table in paragraph (a)(2) for “Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry,” “Nut, tree, group 14,” “Pepper,” and “Pistachio.” d. Add alphabetically the entries for “Carrot, roots,” “Peach subgroup 12-12B,” “Pepper/Eggplant subgroup 8-10B,” “Plum subgroup 12-12C,” and “Nut, tree, group 14-12” to the table in paragraph (a)(2). e. Revise paragraph (c).

    The additions and revision read as follows:

    § 180.377 Diflubenzuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General (1) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Cottonseed subgroup 20C 0.20 Egg 0.07 *    *    *    *    * Poultry, fat 0.10 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.08 *    *    *    *    *

    (2) * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    * Carrot, roots 0.20 *    *    *    *    * Peach subgroup 12-12B 0.50 *    *    *    *    * Pepper/Eggplant subgroup 8-10B 1.0 *    *    *    *    * Plum Subgroup 12-12C 0.50 Nut, tree, group 14-12 0.20 *    *    *    *    *

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with regional registration are established for residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide), in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only the sum of diflubenzuron (N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide), 4-chlorophenylyurea and 4-chloroaniline, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of diflubenzuron, in or on the commodity.

    Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 6.0 Alfalfa, hay 20 Alfalfa, seed 0.90
    [FR Doc. 2016-02816 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0783; FRL-9941-49] Benzyl acetate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of benzyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-11-4), when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only under 40 CFR 180.920. Technology Sciences Group, on behalf of the Huntsman Corporation, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of benzyl acetate.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective February 12, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 12, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0783, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket 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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0783 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 12, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0783, 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 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.

    II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ((PP) IN-10748) by Technology Sciences Group (TSG) 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036, on behalf of the Huntsman Corporation, 8600 Gosling Road, The Woodlands, TX 77381. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of benzyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-11-4) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Huntsman Corporation, the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.

    IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.

    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for benzyl acetate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with benzyl acetate follows.

    A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by benzyl acetate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.

    Benzyl acetate exhibits low levels of toxicity via the dermal route of exposure in rabbits and inhalation and oral routes of exposure in rats. It is mildly irritating to the skin and minimally irritating to the eyes in rabbits. It is not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs.

    In a 13-week feeding study in the rat, atrophic seminiferous tubules were observed in male rats at dose levels of 12,500 parts per millions (ppm) (equivalent to 900 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)). The NOAEL was identified as 6,250 ppm (460 mg/kg/day). In mice, following 13 weeks of exposure via the diet, decreased body weight and food consumption were observed at all doses. The LOAEL was 3,130 ppm (425 mg/kg/day). A NOAEL was not established.

    In a developmental toxicity study in the rat, maternal and fetal toxicity were observed at 1,000 mg/kg/day. Maternal toxicity was manifested as decreased body weight and fetal toxicity was manifested as reduced body weights, increased incidence of dilation of the renal pelvis and skeletal variations. Although qualitative fetal susceptibility is observed, fetal effects occur in the presence of maternal toxicity and a clear NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day was established for maternal and developmental toxicity.

    The potential for benzyl acetate to be genotoxic was evaluated in a battery of in vivo mammalian genotoxicity studies. It was negative in the Ames assay (with and without metabolic activation), sister chromatid exchange assay, Chinese hamster ovary cell assay, mouse micronucleus assay and in the dominant lethal assay in Drosophila. However, it gave a positive response in the mouse lymphoma assay. Since other chromosomal aberrations assays as well as gene mutation assays and a dominant lethal assay gave a negative response, it is concluded that benzyl acetate is unlikely to be mutagenic.

    Evidence of neurotoxicity and neuronal degeneration was identified in the 13-week studies in rats and mice. Signs of neurotoxicity included tremors and ataxia that were associated with the degeneration of the glial cells in the cerebellum and hippocampus at the doses ≥12,500 ppm (≥2,000 mg/kg/day). Since these effects were induced at doses above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) and the established cRfD of 1.10 mg/kg/day, will be protective of these effects, the concern is low for these effects.

    There is evidence that benzyl acetate suppresses immune function in mammalian systems in the rat however this effect occurs only at a dose that is lethal and well above the limit dose. In the 13-week feeding study in the rat, a decrease in the cellular components of the bone marrow, thymus and lymphoid follicles was observed at 50,000 ppm (3,900 mg/kg/day for males and 4,500 mg/kg/day for females), the highest dose tested and well above the limit dose. The NOAEL for this study was 12,500 ppm (900 mg/kg/day). The potential for immunotoxicity is not of concern because the effects occur well above the limit dose and the exposure to benzyl acetate through the proposed use is unlikely to occur at such a high dose.

    The carcinogenicity of benzyl acetate in F344/N rats, and B6C3F1 mice using was evaluated using the gavage method of administration and corn oil as a vehicle. There were indications that benzyl acetate increased the incidences of pancreatic acinar cell adenomas in male rats and the incidences of hepatocellular adenomas and forestomach neoplasms in male and female mice. Because of the confounding effects of corn oil on the incidences of pancreatic neoplasm and because of the controversy over the use of the gavage route of administration, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) decided to re-study benzyl acetate using the dosed feed route of administration. In 1993, the NTP conducted a second set of carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice using the dose feed route of administration. Benzyl acetate was administered via the diet to rats and mice at doses up to 12,000 ppm (510/575 mg/kg/day, male/female). Toxicity was not observed in rats at any dose. In mice, males and females exhibited reduced body weight throughout the entire study at 345/375 mg/kg/day. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice and rats. Since the exposure to benzyl acetate is likely to occur via the dietary route in humans and there is some uncertainty about the use of corn oil in the gavage study, it is concluded that benzyl acetate is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans via the dietary route of exposure.

    In metabolism studies approximately 90% of benzyl acetate is excreted as metabolites primarily in the urine after oral or percutaneous administration. None was detected in the adipose tissue, blood, kidney, liver, lung, muscle, skin or stomach. The major metabolite in the urine was hippuric acid and 95 to 99% of the excreted dose was in this form. Less than 4% remained in the carcass.

    B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

    The point of departure for benzyl acetate is 110 mg/kg/day from the NTP 2-year carcinogenicity study in mice (dietary study) based on decreased in body weights in both sexes at the LOAEL of 345/375 mg/kg/day. There was no NOAEL observed in a 90-day toxicity study in mice based on the effects on body weights seen at all doses (lowest dose tested was 3,130 ppm; equal to 425 mg/kg/day); however, in a carcinogenicity study in mice no effects on body weight were seen at 110 mg/kg/day, therefore, the NOAEL for the carcinogenicity study would be protective of decreased body weights seen in a 90-day study in mice. Therefore, 90-day toxicity study in mice was not selected. This endpoint was used for all exposure scenarios. The dermal absorption and inhalation factors were 100%. The Agency applied an interspecies uncertainty factor (10X) and an intraspecies uncertainty factor (10X); the FQPA safety factor was reduced to 1X.

    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to benzyl acetate, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from benzyl acetate in food as follows:

    An acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted because no endpoint of concern following a single exposure was identified in the available studies. A chronic dietary exposure assessment was completed and performed using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, which includes food consumption information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, “What We Eat In America”, (NHANES/WWEIA). This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. In the absence of actual residue data, the inert ingredient evaluation is based on a highly conservative model that assumes that the residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the highest established tolerance for an active ingredient on a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is that there would be similar rates of degradation between the active and inert ingredient (if any) and that the concentration of inert ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient. The model assumes 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all crops and that every food eaten by a person each day has tolerance-level residues. A complete description of the general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled “Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts” (D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738. Nonpesticidal dietary exposure to benzyl acetate (e.g., use as a food additive (flavoring agent) were also considered as part of aggregate chronic dietary risk assessment.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the screening-level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for benzyl acetate, a conservative drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).

    Based upon the requested use of benzyl acetate, the Agency does not expect non-occupational, non-dietary exposures. However, there is a potential for residential exposure via non-pesticidal uses such as use in cosmetics and other, pesticide uses, once it is approved. The residential exposure could occur via ingestion products containing benzyl acetate, and via dermal and inhalation routes of exposure through use of products containing benzyl acetate in residential settings. These residential pesticide exposures are considered short-term and intermediate-term in nature. Residential exposures to benzyl acetate as the result of its use as a cosmetic ingredient may be short-, intermediate- or long-term in nature. The aggregate-short term exposure assessment for benzyl acetate considers exposures from the pesticidal and nonpesticidal uses (i.e., flavoring agent and cosmetic ingredient) and would be protective of any potential long-term exposure to benzyl acetate resulting from its use in cosmetics as the same toxicological point of departure is used for all exposure durations and the average daily exposure estimates for cosmetic use is conservatively applied to all exposure durations.

    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found benzyl acetate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and benzyl acetate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that benzyl acetate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity Qualitative fetal susceptibility was observed in the developmental study in rats. Maternal (decrease in body weight) and fetal (reduced body weights, increased incidence of dilation of the renal pelvis and skeletal variations) toxicity were observed at 1,000 mg/kg/day, the limit dose. Since fetal toxicity occurs in the presence of maternal toxicity and a clear NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day was established, the established cRfD (1.10 mg/kg/day) will be protective of these effects. The potential for reproduction toxicity was observed in the 13-week dietary study in rats. Atrophy of seminiferous tubules was observed in males at 12,500 ppm (900 mg/kg/day). However, the concern for reproduction toxicity is low since effects occurred at a high dose and a clear NOAEL of 6,250 ppm (460 mg/kg/day) was established. Therefore, the established cRfD will be protective of this effect. In addition, no female reproductive parameters were affected in the developmental toxicity study in rats.

    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

    i. The toxicity database for benzyl acetate contains the following studies that are adequate to evaluate the potential toxicity of benzyl acetate for infants and children: A thirteen week feeding study in the rat, a 13-week feeding study in the mouse, a developmental toxicity study in the rat, several in vivo and in vitro mutagenicity studies, and carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats via gavage and dietary studies.

    ii. Evidence of neurotoxicity and neuronal degeneration seen in a thirteen-week study was determined not to exceed levels of concern since the effects occurred at doses that were well above the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). The established cRfD is 1.10 mg/kg/day therefore is protective of these effects.

    iii. Qualitative fetal susceptibility was observed in the developmental study in rats. Maternal (decrease in body weight) and fetal (reduced body weights, increased incidence of dilation of the renal pelvis and skeletal variations) toxicity were observed at 1,000 mg/kg/day, the limit dose. Since fetal toxicity occurs in the presence of maternal toxicity and a clear NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day was established, the established cRfD (1.10 mg/kg/day) will be protective of these effects. The potential for reproduction toxicity was observed in the 13-week dietary study in rats. Atrophy of seminiferous tubules was observed in males at 12,500 ppm (900 mg/kg/day). However, the concern for reproductive toxicity is low since effects occurred at a high dose and a clear NOAEL of 6,250 ppm (460 mg/kg/day) was established.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to benzyl acetate in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by benzyl acetate.

    E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety Section

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, benzyl acetate is not expected to pose an acute risk.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to benzyl acetate from food and water will utilize 62.9% of the cPAD for children ages 1 to 2, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

    Benzyl acetate is likely to be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that are registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to benzyl acetate. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for screening-level short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 150 for children ages 1 to 2 and 260 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for benzyl acetate is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, benzyl acetate is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in the dietary carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats, benzyl acetate is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to benzyl acetate residues.

    V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

    VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180.920 for benzyl aceetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-11-4) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 4, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. In § 180.920 add alphabetically the entry “Benzyl acetate” to the table to read as follows:
    § 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance. Inert ingredients Limits Uses *    *    *    *    * Benzyl acetate (CAS Reg. No. 140-11-4) Solvent *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-02815 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 14-226; FCC 15-118] Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, information collection requirements adopted in the Commission's Report and Order relating to the Amendment of the Commission's Rules Related to Broadcast Licensee-Conducted Contests. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the rule.

    DATES:

    The amendments to 47 CFR 73.1216, published at 80 FR 64354, October 23, 2015, are effective on February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams by email at [email protected] and telephone at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on February 3, 2016, OMB approved information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 15-118, published at 80 FR 64354. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1209. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of those information collection requirements.

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on February 3, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.1216, as amended in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 15-118. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1209.

    The foregoing notification is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1209.

    OMB Approval Date: February 3, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2019.

    Title: Section 73.1216, Licensee-Conducted Contests.

    Form Number: None.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 20,732 respondents; 20,732 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.1-9 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required in order to monitor regulatory compliance. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 1, 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 122,854 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $6,219,300.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission's amendments to its “Contest Rule” permit broadcast licensees to comply with their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting those terms or by making them available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. The Commission's rule amendments also define the disclosure obligation in cases where a licensee has chosen to meet that obligation through an Internet Web site. The information collection requirements afford broadcasters more flexibility in the manner of their compliance with the Contest Rule while giving consumers improved access to important contest information.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02900 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 48 CFR Parts 436 and 452 RIN 0599-AA21 Agriculture Acquisition Regulation, Fire Suppression and Liability AGENCY:

    Office of Procurement and Property Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) amends the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) by adding a new clause entitled “Fire Suppression and Liability.” Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act) provided the USDA Forest Service with permanent authority for Stewardship End Result Contracting by adding a new Section 604 to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Section 8205 contains a requirement that the agency use a fire liability provision in all stewardship contracts and agreements that is in substantially the same form as the fire liability provisions contained in the integrated resource timber contract in Forest Service Contract Numbered 2400-13, Part H, Section H.4. This final rule establishes a new clause in the AGAR, the USDA supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), for use in Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC) subject to the FAR. This new AGAR clause addresses fire liability on stewardship contracts as required in the 2014 Agricultural Act.

    DATES:

    Effective March 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Ismaela Ramirez, Senior Procurement Analyst, USDA, Office of Procurement and Property Management at (202) 730-7997.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Authority II. Background III. Discussion of Comments IV. Summary of the Comments V. Regulatory Information List of Subjects I. Authority

    The enactment of Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) establishes permanent authority to conduct Stewardship End Result Contracting projects by adding a new Section 604 to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) (16 U.S.C. 6591c). Section 8205 of the 2014 Agricultural Act contains a requirement that the agency use a fire liability provision in all stewardship contracts and agreements that is in substantially the same form as the fire liability provisions contained in the integrated resource timber contract in Forest Service Contract Numbered 2400-13, Part H, Section H.4 and timber sale contracts conducted pursuant to Section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a).

    II. Background

    Beginning in 1998 with the enactment of Section 347 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1999, the Forest Service has been authorized to carry out Stewardship End Result Contracting Projects; first on a pilot basis and then, through a succession of subsequent amendments, this authority was expanded. The enactment of Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 sets forth the permanent authority for conducting Stewardship End Resulting Contracting Projects by adding a new Section 604 to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. Section 8205 contains a provision that “not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Chief of the Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land Management shall issue for use in all contracts and agreements under this section fire liability provisions that are in substantially the same form as the fire liability provisions contained in— (A) integrated resource timber contracts, as described in the Forest Service Contract Numbered 2400-13, Part H, Section H.4; and (B) timber sale contracts conducted pursuant to Section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a).”

    This final rule establishes a new AGAR clause for use in stewardship contracts subject to the FAR. This clause addresses fire liability on Stewardship End Result Contracting, as required in the 2014 Agricultural Act. The text of the clause is closely specified in the law.

    III. Discussion of Comments

    USDA solicited comments on the interim rule on May 22, 2014. USDA received two comments at the end of the posted comment period on June 23, 2014.

    Both comments were received from the Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), a national trade association comprised of large and small companies, regional and state associations, county governments, and others concerned about the management of our National Forests and the landscape covered by Bureau of Land Management.

    Both comments recommend changes to add clarity and consistency to the language in the regulations. The comments suggest that USDA follow the requirement of implementing a liability clause for IRSC contracts that mirrored Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTC). The comments from FFRC are presented below, along with USDA's responses and are grouped by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section numbers to which they apply.

    48 CFR 436.578

    Comment (1) In Section 436.578, we recommend that you delete “as applicable”. Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 states that “. . . the Chief and Director shall issue for use in all [emphasis added] contracts and agreements under this section fire liability provisions . . .”

    48 CFR 452.236-78

    Comment (2) In Section 452.236-78, we recommend that you change “may be inserted” to “shall be inserted”. Again, Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 states that “. . . the Chief and Director shall issue for use in all [emphasis added] contracts and agreements under this section fire liability provisions . . .”

    Response: FFRC stated that the plain language in Section 8205 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) makes clear that Congress intended the fire liability provisions to be non-discretionary, both for the issuance of the provision and its use in all contracts. However, they believe that the language in the Interim Rule conveys discretion that is not found in the statute. The Forest Service agrees with both comments and will amend the CFR to read as follows: “the Chief shall issue for use in all contracts and agreements under this section fire liability provisions that are in substantially the same form (16 U.S.C. 472a) for all IRSC solicitations issued after May 22, 2014. Contracts and agreements in effect on May 22, 2014, are not eligible to insert this provision.” The Forest Service believes the aforementioned statement in response to the two comments reflects the intention of the Farm Bill with regards to implementing a fire liability clause for Integrated Resources Services Contracts that mirrors current Timber Sales Contracts. This creates the same fire liability for all Forest Service stewardship contract types.

    IV. Summary of the Comments

    As a result of public comments received on the interim rule, USDA will amend the CFR to add clarity and consistency that reflects the intention of the Farm Bill with regard to implementing a fire liability clause for IRSCs that mirrors current Timber Sales Contracts.

    V. Regulatory Information Regulatory Flexibility Act

    USDA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. There is no additional submission required as a result of this action. The rule will not have a significant impact on the small business community or on a substantial number of small businesses.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the final rule does not impose any record keeping or information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Environmental Impact

    The USDA has determined that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this is not a significant rule. This rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor would it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health and safety, or State or local governments. This final rule would not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this final rule would not alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grant, user fee, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of such programs. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

    No Takings Implications

    The USDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630 and determined that the rule would not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

    Civil Justice Reform Act

    The USDA has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12778, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule or that impede its full implementation would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this final rule; and (3) it would require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

    Federalism and Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    The USDA has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on Federalism and has determined that this rule conforms to the Federalism principles in the E.O. The rule would not impose any compliance costs on the States; and would not have any substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Moreover, this final rule does not have tribal implications as defined by E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with tribes is not required.

    Energy Effects

    The USDA has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or use and has determined that this rule would not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the USDA assessed the effects of this final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule would not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under Section 202 of the Act is not required.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Parts 436 and 452

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Department of Agriculture amends 48 CFR Chapter 4, in the following manner:

    PART 436—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS 1. The authority citation for part 436 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 40 U.S.C. 121(c)

    2. Section 436.578 is revised to read as follows:
    436.578 Contract clause.

    Insert the clause at 452.236-78, Fire Suppression and Liability in solicitations and contracts for Integrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC) awarded for the Forest Service.

    PART 452—SOLICITATION PROVISION AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 3. The authority citation for part 452 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301 and 40 U.S.C. 121(c)

    4. Section 452.236-78 is revised to read as follows:
    452.236-78 Fire Suppression and Liability.

    As prescribed in section 436.578, the following clause shall be inserted in Intergrated Resource Service Contracts (IRSC) awarded for the Forest Service.

    Fire Suppression and Liability Clause

    (a) Contractor's Responsibility for Fire Fighting. The Contractor, under the provisions of FAR clause at 52.236-9, Protection of Existing Vegetation, Structures, Equipment, Utilities, and Improvements, shall immediately extinguish all fires on the work site other than those fires in use as a part of the work. The Contractor may be held liable for all damages and for all costs incurred by the Government for labor, subsistence, equipment, supplies, and transportation deemed necessary to control or suppress a fire set or caused by the Contractor or the Contractor's agents or employees subject to the following fire classifications listed in subsection (b).

    (b) Fire Suppression Costs. The Contractor's obligations for cost of fire suppression vary according to three classifications of fires as follows:

    (1) Operations Fire. An “operations fire” is a fire caused by the Contractor's operations other than a negligent fire. The Contractor agrees to reimburse Forest Service for such cost for each operations fire, subject to a maximum dollar amount of [Contracting Officer insert amount]. The cost of the Contractor's actions, supplies, and equipment on any such fire, or otherwise provided at the request of Forest Service, shall be credited toward such maximum. If the Contractor's actual cost exceeds contractor's obligation stated above, Forest Service shall reimburse the contractor for the excess.

    (2) Negligent Fire. A “negligent fire” is a fire caused by the negligence or fault of the Contractor's operations including, but not limited to, one caused by smoking by persons engaged in the Contractor's operations during the course of their employment, or during rest or lunch periods; or if the Contractor's failure to comply with requirements under this contract results in a fire starting, or permits a fire to spread. Damages and the cost of suppressing negligent fires shall be borne by the Contractor.

    (3) Other Fires on Contract Area. Forest Service shall pay the Contractor, at firefighting rates common in the area or at prior agreed rates, for equipment or personnel furnished by the Contractor at the request of Forest Service, on any fire on contract area other than an operations fire or a negligent fire.

    (c) Contractor's Responsibility for Notification in Case of Fire. The Contractor shall immediately notify the Government of any fires sighted on or in the vicinity of the work site.

    (d) Contractor's Responsibility for Responding to Emergencies. When directed by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall temporarily redirect employees and equipment from the work site for emergency work (anticipated to be restricted to firefighting). This is considered to be within the general scope of the contract. An equitable adjustment for any such redirection of employees and equipment will be made under the FAR clause at 52.243-4, Changes.

    (e) Performance by the Contractor. Where the Contractor's employees, agents, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees or agents perform the Contractor's operations in connection with fire responsibilities, the Contractor's obligations shall be the same as if performance was by Contractor.

    (f) State Law. The Contractor shall not be relieved by the terms of this contract of any liability to the United States for fire suppression costs recovered in an action based on State law, except for such costs resulting from operations fires. Amounts due to the Contractor for firefighting expenditures on operations fires shall not be withheld pending settlement of any such claim or action based on State law.

    (End of Clause)
    Dated: February 4, 2016. Gregory L. Parham, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02745 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-TX-P
    81 29 Friday, February 12, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1126] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, Between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD, during a paddling event on May 14, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-1126 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 Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP  Captain of the Port 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, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 28, 2015, ABC Events, Inc. notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Bay Bridge Paddle from 8 a.m. until noon on May 14, 2016, to both showcase the kayak and stand up paddle board water sport for intermediate and elite paddlers, and benefit the Annapolis Chapter of the Foundation for Community Betterment and the Maryland Chapter of the Special Olympics. The paddle race is to be held under and between the north and south spans of the William P. Lane, Jr. (US-50/301) Memorial Bridges, located between Sandy Point, Anne Arundel County, MD and Kent Island, Queen Anne's County, MD. Elite paddlers will depart Sandy Point and proceed easterly along a 4.2-mile course toward Kent Island, turn around upon reaching a point near Kent Island, and proceed back to Sandy Point. Intermediate paddlers will depart Sandy Point and proceed easterly along the same 4.2-mile course toward Kent Island, however, they will turn around upon reaching the half way point (2.1 miles), and proceed back to Sandy Point. Hazards from the paddle race include event numerous event participants crossing designated shipping channels and interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels. The COTP Baltimore has determined that potential hazards associated with the paddle race would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Chesapeake Bay before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Baltimore proposes to establish special local regulations from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May 14, 2016, and, if necessary due to inclement weather, from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May 15, 2016. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′36″ N., longitude 076°23′05″ W. and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′14″ N., longitude 076°20′00″ W., and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′16″ N., longitude 076°24′30″ W. and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′38.5″ N., longitude 076°20′06″ W. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 a.m. until noon paddle event. Except for Bay Bridge Paddle participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Baltimore or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 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 regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Chesapeake Bay for 5 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

    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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

    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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 5 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and 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 proposed 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 § 100.35-T05-1126 to read as follows:
    § 100.501-T05-1126 Special Local Regulation; Chesapeake Bay, between Sandy Point and Kent Island, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Chesapeake Bay between and adjacent to the spans of the William P. Lane Jr. Memorial Bridges from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards north of the north bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′36″ N., longitude 076°23′05″ W., and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°59′14″ N., longitude 076°20′00″ W., and bounded to the south by a line drawn parallel and 500 yards south of the south bridge span that originates from the western shoreline at latitude 39°00′16″ N., longitude 076°24′30″ W., and thence eastward to the eastern shoreline at latitude 38°58′38.5″ N., longitude 076°20′06″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the Bay Bridge Paddle event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Baltimore or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, to seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, to seek permission to transit the area, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.

    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May 14, 2016, and if necessary, due to inclement weather, from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May 15, 2016.

    Dated: January 29, 2016. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02814 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0250; FRL-9942-16-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Removal of I/M Program in Memphis and Revisions to the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for Shelby County, Tennessee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State of Tennessee's May 23, 2014, State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Shelby County Health Department (SCHD), seeking to modify the SIP by removing the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program in the City of Memphis, Tennessee, and by incorporating Shelby County's revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Among other things, the revised maintenance plan updates the emissions inventory estimates and the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the years 2006 and 2021 and contains an emissions reduction measure to offset the emissions increase expected from the termination of City of Memphis I/M program. EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0250 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-2014-0250, 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: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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-2014-0250. 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 may not be 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:

    Richard Wong, 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. Mr. Wong may be reached by phone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. What is being proposed? II. What is the background of the Shelby County Maintenance area? III. What are the requirements of CAA Sections 110(l) and 193? IV. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal and request? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What is being proposed?

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision seeking to remove the City of Memphis I/M program from the SIP and to incorporate Shelby County's revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the SIP.1 The maintenance plan includes, among other things, an emissions reduction measure to offset the emissions increase expected from the termination of City of Memphis I/M program as well as revised emission inventory estimates and revised MVEBs based upon new modeling associated with the termination of the I/M program and the inclusion of the offset measure. The SIP revision also contains a technical demonstration that the requested removal of the I/M program will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    1 The contingency measures portion of Shelby County's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as incorporated into the SIP, includes the implementation of an I/M program in Shelby County as a contingency measure should a monitored violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS occur in the former Memphis, TN-AR nonattainment area. The proposed SIP revision will not remove the I/M program from the contingency measures in the SIP-approved maintenance plan.

    II. What is the background of the Shelby County maintenance area?

    Shelby County was designated as nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS on March 3, 1978. See 43 FR 8962. Local transportation sources in the City of Memphis were identified as the prime contributors to monitored CO violations in Shelby County at that time. The City of Memphis I/M program was adopted as a control strategy to attain the CO NAAQS.

    On July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37939), EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO standard and approved the initial 10-year CO maintenance plan for Shelby County. Subsequently, further improvements in automotive technology led to a consistent reduction in locally monitored levels of CO. On October 25, 2006, EPA approved the required second 10-year CO maintenance plan which demonstrated that I/M was no longer needed to maintain the CO NAAQS. See 71 FR 62384.

    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated Shelby County, Tennessee, and Crittenden County, Arkansas, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with a classification of `moderate' (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area”). See 69 FR 23858. Under CAA section 182(b)(4), moderate ozone nonattainment areas with a census-defined urbanized area population over a given threshold are required to adopt basic I/M as part of the required SIP.

    Following the initial designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, Shelby County, the State of Tennessee, Crittenden County, and the State of Arkansas adopted additional measures to control ozone-forming emissions in the region and petitioned EPA to use its discretion under CAA section 181(a)(4) to reclassify the area from moderate to marginal. On September 22, 2004, EPA granted the petition to reclassify the area, which removed the SIP planning requirements mandated of moderate ozone nonattainment areas, including the adoption of a mandatory I/M program, and reset the attainment deadline to June 15, 2007. See 69 FR 56697. The Area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the marginal area attainment deadline. Consequently, on March 28, 2008, EPA reclassified the Area as a moderate nonattainment area. See 73 FR 16547. This reclassification reset the attainment deadline to June 15, 2010, with an attainment plan SIP revision due on March 1, 2009, to address all CAA requirements for a moderate ozone nonattainment area, including an I/M program in Shelby County pursuant to CAA section 184(b)(4).

    The end of the 2008 ozone monitoring season resulted in a design value for the Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area that met the NAAQS. Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas prepared separate, but coordinated, redesignation requests and maintenance plans for their respective portions of the Area. Tennessee, on behalf of Shelby County, submitted the redesignation request and maintenance plan for its portion of the 1997 8-hour Ozone Area to EPA on February 26, 2009, prior to the attainment plan SIP revision due date.

    EPA approved Tennessee's redesignation request and maintenance plan on January 4, 2010. See 75 FR 56. Although there was no longer a mandatory requirement to implement I/M in Shelby County under section 184(b)(4) of the CAA, the City of Memphis continued to operate its I/M program, and the SIP-approved maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the implementation of a basic I/M program in Shelby County as a contingency measure in the event that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is violated in the 1997 8-hour Ozone Area after redesignation. In mid-2012, the Memphis City Council voted to defund the City of Memphis I/M program beginning with Fiscal Year 2013/2014. Vehicle inspection operations at all four City of Memphis inspection stations ended on June 28, 2013. Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP submission addresses the termination of this program.

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). EPA designated Shelby County; Crittenden County, Arkansas; and a portion of Desoto County, Mississippi, as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Memphis 2008 8-hour Ozone Area”). See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). Currently, monitoring data for the Memphis 2008 8-hour Ozone Area indicates that the Area has attaining data for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As noted previously, marginal ozone nonattainment areas are not required to adopt an I/M program.

    III. What are the requirements of CAA Sections 110(l) and 193?

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision includes a demonstration that the requested actions comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision.

    EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to SIP revisions for all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants.2 EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all criteria pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision.

    2 The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2.

    In nonattainment areas, EPA will generally not approve a SIP revision under 110(l) that allows additional emissions of pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment in the absence of equivalent emissions reductions or an attainment demonstration addressing the proposed changes to the SIP. “Equivalent” emissions reductions are reductions that are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions must represent actual emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control measure in order to preserve the status quo level of air emissions. If the status quo is preserved, noninterference is demonstrated. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus.

    Section 193 of the CAA prohibits the modification of control measures in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area for any air pollutant unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of that pollutant. Shelby County included a section 193 analysis in its SIP revision because it requested removal of the I/M program from the SIP, because Shelby County is in a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and because I/M programs may impact ozone air quality.3 As discussed in Section IV, Shelby County included emissions reductions from the closure of the Cleo, Inc. (Cleo) facility to offset the estimated increase in emissions due to the termination of the City of Memphis I/M program and to support the State's analysis of its requested actions under CAA sections 110(l) and 193 as they relate to the ozone NAAQS.4

    3 Shelby County is designated nonattainment only for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    4 The Cleo facility was a gift wrap manufacturing plant and warehouse located at 4025 Viscount Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee.

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal and request?

    Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision seeks to remove the City of Memphis I/M program from the SIP and incorporate Shelby County's revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maintenance plan includes, among other things, an emissions reduction measure to offset the emissions increase expected from the termination of City of Memphis I/M program as well as revised emission inventory estimates and revised MVEBs based upon new modeling associated with the requested removal of the I/M program and upon the inclusion of an offset measure.5 The SIP revision also contains a technical demonstration to support the State's analysis of its requested actions under CAA sections 110(l) and 193. The revised MVEBs are discussed later on in this document.

    5 The other revisions to the maintenance plan are textual changes addressing the requested removal of the I/M program, the inclusion of the Cleo facility offsets, the revised MVEBs and emissions inventory, and voluntary measures that may improve ozone air quality in the 1997 8-hour Ozone Area. These textual changes do not result in emissions increases and therefore will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.

    a. Non-interference Analyses Related to the Removal of the City of Memphis I/M Program

    Tennessee's SIP revision includes an evaluation of the impact that the requested removal of the City of Memphis I/M program would have on attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant. This notice focuses on the ozone and particulate matter (PM) NAAQS because the termination of the I/M program is expected to increase VOC emissions from on-road mobile sources and because VOCs are precursors to ozone and PM.6 7 8 9 The SIP revision includes revised mobile source emissions modeling using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) on-road mobile source model to estimate the emissions increases associated with the termination of the I/M program. As part of its technical demonstration under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, Tennessee's SIP revision quantifies the emissions reductions from the closure of the Cleo, Inc. facility for use as offsets for the requested removal of the I/M program from the SIP and includes those offsets in its revised maintenance plan for incorporation into the SIP.

    6 EPA redesignated Shelby County to attainment for the CO NAAQS in 1994. See 59 FR 37939. On October 25, 2006, EPA approved the second ten-year CO maintenance plan for the Memphis/Shelby County CO Maintenance Area with a 2017 CO safety margin of 480.69 tpd that did not include the I/M program and concluded that the I/M program is not necessary for maintenance of the CO standard. See 71 FR 62384.

    7 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is emitted from motor vehicles, but the amount emitted is a function of the sulfur content of the fuel being combusted. Because the I/M program did not address fuel composition, its termination has no impact on SO2 emissions.

    8 The termination of the I/M program will have no impact on lead emissions because lead is no longer blended into on-road motor fuel.

    9 On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. NO2 is a subset of NOX, and as shown in the mobile source modeling, termination of the I/M program does not increase NOX emissions.

    i. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    The SIP revision quantifies the potential emissions increases in NOX and VOC due to the termination of the I/M program using MOVES2010b,10 the most current EPA-approved on-road emission model at the time that Tennessee submitted its SIP revision, with inputs developed by the current travel demand model (TDM) used by the Memphis Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Shelby County chose 2013 as the year for analysis of the affected change in emissions after consultation with air quality and transportation partners, including the MPO and EPA, because the I/M program terminated in June 2013.

    10 Shelby County's 2010b MOVES modeling conforms with EPA's modeling guidance at the time of the SIP submittal.

    The 2013 inputs for the MOVES model were developed by interpolating TDM results for 2011 and 2015 in order to use the model to estimate the emissions increases in 2013 associated with the termination of the Memphis I/M program. The results of this modeling are provided in Table 1:

    Table 1—On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Comparison for the 2013 Ozone Season No I/M tons/day With I/M tons/day Change tons/day percentage VOC 13.609 13.257 0.352 2.66 NOX 29.652 29.652 0.000 0.00

    The County's on-road mobile source modeling predicts that the termination of the City of Memphis I/M program will increase 2013 ozone season VOC by approximately 0.352 tons per ozone season day and will not increase NOX emissions. Therefore, the SIP revision includes VOC emissions reductions that offset 128.48 tons per year (tpy) (0.352 tons per day (tpd) multiplied by 365 days per year).11

    11 Using an annual average provides a more conservative estimate for the total amount of emissions reductions needed as an offset.

    Tennessee's SIP revision seeks to incorporate the emissions reductions from the closure of the Cleo facility for use as offsets for the termination of the I/M program. The company ceased operation in 2011 and submitted a letter to Shelby County on January 4, 2012, requesting termination of its Title V air permit effective at the end of 2011, making the reductions permanent and enforceable. SCHD issued a Title V termination letter on April 3, 2012. Shelby County quantified the emissions reductions associated with the Cleo facility shutdown by averaging the certified annual emissions reported by the facility to the County in 2009 and 2010, the last two full years of operation. In 2009 and 2010, Cleo reported and paid air pollution fees on actual VOC emissions of 239.1 tons and 254.5 tons, respectively, resulting in an annual average of 246.8 tpy (0.676 tpd across the calendar year). During the same operational period, Cleo averaged 1.09 tpy of NOX emissions (0.003 tpd across the calendar year). Shelby County banked the Cleo shutdown emissions reductions for use as industrial permitting offsets in the Memphis 2008 8-hour Ozone Area and has elected to remove 0.387 tpd (0.352 tpd multiplied by the 1.1:1 offset ratio in CAA section 182(a)(4)) of these shutdown VOC emissions reductions from the bank to offset the estimated VOC emissions increase resulting from the termination of the I/M Program. EPA proposes to agree with the County's technical demonstration.

    ii. Non-Interference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

    Shelby County evaluated the potential for the requested removal of the I/M program to interfere with maintenance of the PM NAAQS in the County because studies have shown that VOCs can be a precursor to PM in certain chemical and meteorological circumstances. The County concluded that the termination of the I/M program would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS because the PM2.5 design values for the Area are below the PM2.5 NAAQS; VOC emissions are projected to decline through 2021 without the I/M program; and the VOC emissions reductions from the shutdown of the Cleo facility offset the projected VOC emissions increases from the termination of the I/M program. EPA proposes to agree with the County's technical demonstration.

    b. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan—Emissions Inventory Update

    The revised maintenance plan included in Tennessee's SIP revision contains an updated emissions inventory with emissions projections that account for the termination of the I/M program and the closure of the Cleo facility. Shelby County emissions for 2021 remain the same as those provided in the Shelby County 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan approved by EPA on January 4, 2010 (75 FR 56), with the exception of on-road mobile and point source emissions. On-road emissions for 2006 and 2021 in the revised maintenance plan were remodeled using MOVES2010b, and they replace the on-road emissions estimates derived from the previous model, MOBILE6.2. The MOVES model includes the road class VMT as an input file and generates on-road mobile source emissions estimates that take into consideration expected Federal tailpipe standards, fleet turnover, and new fuels. The MOVES modeling accounts for the termination of the I/M program in 2013.

    Point source emissions for 2006 remain the same; however, Tennessee adjusted the 2021 point source emissions for VOCs and NOX from the 2010 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan by including the emissions reductions resulting from the closure of the Cleo facility. The change in emissions for on-road and point source is reflected in Table 2, and projections for on-road mobile, point, area, and non-road mobile sources are presented in Table 3. The revised maintenance inventory demonstrates that future emissions of VOCs and NOX through 2021 will remain below those in base year 2006, thereby indicating that Shelby County will continue to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of the maintenance plan period.

    Table 2—Change in NOX and VOC Emissions Inventory [Ozone season tons per day] VOC Type inventory Year On-road Point Base year 2006 −1.23 No change Projection 2021 −2.80 −0.676 NOX Base year 2006 2.14 No change Projection 2021 −0.96 −0.003 Table 3—NOX and VOC Emissions Inventory [Ozone season tons per day] VOC Type inventory Year Area Non-road On-road * Point ** Total Baseline Base year 2006 37.531 22.698 23.986 13.665 97.880 97.880 Projection 2021 47.039 19.734 8.558 17.715 93.046 97.880 NOX Base year 2006 2.101 26.657 58.013 14.458 101.229 101.229 Projection 2021 2.695 21.607 16.035 18.373 58.710 101.229 * 2006 on-road emissions include emissions reductions from the City of Memphis I/M program, and the 2021 on-road emissions projections include emissions increases from the termination of the City of Memphis I/M program. ** The 2021 point source projections for VOC and NOX account for the shutdown of the Cleo facility and have been reduced from the 2021 VOC and NOX point source projections in the 2010 maintenance plan by 0.676 tpd and 0.003 tpd, respectively. c. What are the Revised MVEBs?

    Tennessee's May 23, 2014, maintenance plan revision updates the MVEBs for 2006 and 2021 using on-road mobile source emissions estimates from MOVES and removes the MVEBs for 2009 and 2017. The revised 2021 MVEB accounts for the termination of the I/M program and the shutdown of the Cleo facility. These budgets are used by transportation authorities to assure that transportation plans, programs, and projects are consistent with, and conform to, the maintenance of acceptable air quality in the Memphis 1997 8-hour Ozone Area.

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR part 93 set forth EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are areas that were previously nonattainment for a particular NAAQS but have since been redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan for that NAAQS.

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule (58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.

    According to 40 CFR 93.118, a maintenance plan must establish MVEBs for the last year of the maintenance plan (in this case, 2021). The updated MVEBs in the revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are for the base year (2006) and the last year of the first 10-year maintenance plan (2021). The 2021 MVEB reflects the total on-road mobile source emissions for 2021 plus an allocation from the available VOC and NOX safety margins. The MVEBs are presented in Table 4.

    Table 4—Shelby County VOC and NOX MVEBs (Ozone season tons per day) 2006 2021 NOX 58.013 56.428 VOC 23.986 12.782

    The previously approved 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for Shelby County contained interim MVEBs for years 2006, 2009, and 2017 in addition to the required maintenance year MVEB of 2021. The consensus formed during the interagency consultation process was that MVEBs should only be set for 2006 and 2021.12 Therefore, the revised maintenance plan removes the interim budgets for years 2009 and 2017.

    12 The transportation conformity provisions of the CAA require interagency consultation in the development of MVEBs. The consultation process involves federal agencies (EPA, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration), state and local transportation agencies, state and local air agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations.

    Under 40 CFR 93.101, the safety margin is the difference between the attainment level and the projected level, from all sources, of emissions in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which Shelby County met the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The safety margin, in whole or in part, can be allocated to the transportation sector as long as total emissions from all categories remain below the attainment level.

    For the revised 2021 MVEBs, Shelby County allocated ninety-five percent of the VOC and NOX safety margin emissions to the MVEB.13 Specifically, Shelby County allocated 4.224 tpd of the available VOC safety margin and 40.393 tpd of the available NOX safety margin to the 2021 MVEBs. The remaining safety margin in 2021 for VOC is 0.223 tpd and for NOX is 2.126 tpd. The allocation from the safety margins is available because of reductions of VOC and NOX that have occurred, and are projected to occur through 2021, primarily from mobile sources. VOC and NOX reductions are anticipated from non-road mobile source categories, but not to the extent that they occur in the on-road source category. VOC reductions from area sources are also anticipated to occur due to control techniques instituted on a federal level on industrial manufacturing activities. However, future population increases act to balance area source reductions such that there is a net increase in VOC emissions in this source category.

    13 Shelby County calculated the NOX safety margin by subtracting 2021 projected emissions from 2006 baseline emissions and further subtracting 0.387 tpd to account for the offset applied to the removal of the City of Memphis I/M program (i.e., 97.880 tpd (2006 baseline)−93.046 tpd (2021 projection)−0.387 tpd (offset applied) = 4.447 tpd (NOX safety margin)).

    The MVEB is constrained to assure that the total emissions from all source categories do not exceed the 2006 attainment year emissions. The MVEBs are consistent with the plan for maintaining total emissions from all source categories at or below the 2006 VOC and NOX emission levels through 2021. For future year conformity determinations, transportation authorities must rely on the MVEBs unless plan revisions occur. Through this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2006 and 2021 for Shelby County because EPA believes that the County maintains the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the emissions at the levels of the budgets. After thorough review, EPA is proposing to approve the budgets because they are consistent with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through 2021.

    V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's May 23, 2014, SIP revision that seeks to remove the City of Memphis I/M program from the SIP and incorporate Shelby County's revised maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that includes an emission reduction measure to offset the emission increases associated with the requested removal of the I/M program from the SIP. The revised maintenance plan also contains updated attainment inventories and updated MVEBs for NOX and VOC for 2006 and 2021 for Shelby County.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 (Public Law 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 28, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02844 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0751; FRL-9942-06-Region 9] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 2, 2015, proposing to approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The December 2, 2015 proposal provided for a 30-day public comment period ending January 4, 2016. One document in the docket for this proposal was not listed at www.regulations.gov until after the comment period had closed. EPA is reopening the comment period for 15 days to ensure the public has an opportunity to review and comment on all material in the docket.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by February 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0751 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected].

    For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4126, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document reopens the public comment period established in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75442) (FRL-9939-64-Region 9). In that document, EPA solicited comments on a proposed rule to approve revisions to the SJVUAPCD's Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines) and referenced a technical support document (TSD) containing further information about the rule. Due to an administrative error, the TSD was not available on www.regulations.gov until after the close of the comment period on January 4, 2016. Although EPA did not receive any public comments on this proposal or any requests for the TSD, EPA is reopening the comment period for another 15 days to ensure that the public has an opportunity to review and comment on all material in the docket. Accordingly, any comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before February 29, 2016.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02845 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0855; FRL-9942-14-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a submittal by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Idaho DEQ) demonstrating that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. Specifically, the Idaho DEQ reviewed monitoring and modeling data to show that sources within Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0855 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information that is restricted by statute from disclosure. 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA requests that 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 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information please contact John Chi at (206) 553-1185, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Evaluation III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background

    On January 22, 2010, the EPA established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged over one hour, supplementing the existing annual standard (75 FR 6474). Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often referred to as infrastructure requirements. On December 24, 2015, the Idaho DEQ submitted a SIP revision to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements. The submittal included monitoring and modeling data analysis to demonstrate that sources within Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 and 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS in any other state. This action addresses the 2010 NO2 NAAQS only. We intend to address the 2010 sulfur dioxide NAAQS in a separate, future action.

    II. Evaluation

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires state SIPs to contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within a state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state.

    In the December 24, 2015 submittal, the Idaho DEQ reviewed air quality monitoring data for the United States and found that all monitored areas in the country met the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the design value period 2008 through 2010. The Idaho DEQ also reviewed estimated background concentrations for the 1-hour NO2 standard for the design value period 2009 through 2011. The modeled design values for that period were well below the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb. The Idaho DEQ concluded that based on monitoring data and modeled background concentrations Idaho does not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    In addition to reviewing Idaho's submittal, the EPA reviewed more recent monitoring data for NO2 throughout the United States. Using previous EPA methodology,1 EPA evaluated specific monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance problems, which we refer to as “receptors.” EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as any monitor that has violated the NO2 NAAQS in the most recent three-year period. Meanwhile, EPA identifies NO2 maintenance receptors as any monitor that violated the NO2 NAAQS in either of the prior monitoring cycles (2010-2012 and 2011-2013), but attained in the most recent monitoring cycle (2012-2014). During the three most recent design value periods of 2010 through 2012, 2011 through 2013, and 2012 through 2014, we found no monitors violating the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the United States.2 Using this methodology, the EPA found no monitors meeting the criteria as a nonattainment receptor and/or as a maintenance receptor. Further, we note that available information indicates that monitored values are well below the 100 ppb 1-hour NO2 NAAQS in states bordering Idaho. The highest design value in bordering states for the most recent period is 68 ppb, at Utah County, Utah, as shown in the table below.

    1See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

    2http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.

    Table 1—1-Hour NO2 NAAQS Design Values in States Bordering Idaho State County Site 2012-2014 DV
  • (ppb)
  • MT Rosebud 300870001 7 NV Washoe 320310016 54 OR Multnomah 410510080 35 UT Cache 490050004 49 UT Carbon 490071003 31 UT Salt Lake 490353006 55 UT Utah 490490002 68 WY Campbell 560050892 35 WY Fremont 560130099 5 WY Sublette 560350101 22 WY Sweetwater 560370300 20 WY Uinta 560410101 12

    The EPA also reviewed regulatory provisions to control future new sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in Idaho. We note that on April 17, 2014, we approved Idaho's NO2 infrastructure SIP (79 FR 21669). In that action, we stated that Idaho generally regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides through its SIP-approved new source review permitting programs and operating permit regulations. Idaho's new source review permitting rules are found at IDAPA 58.01.01.200 through 228. These rules help ensure that no new or modified source of nitrogen oxides will cause or contribute to violation of the NO2 NAAQS. In addition, Idaho's Tier II operating permit regulations at IDAPA 58.01.01.400 through 410 require that to obtain an operating permit, the applicant must demonstrate the source will not cause or significantly contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard. These rules state that Idaho DEQ will require a Tier II source operating permit if Idaho DEQ determines emission rate reductions are necessary to attain or maintain any ambient air quality standard or applicable prevention of significant deterioration increment.

    Based on our review of the Idaho submittal, air quality monitoring data, and provisions in the current Federally-approved Idaho SIP regulating new sources, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We also do not expect the monitors in states bordering Idaho, identified in Table 1 above, to have difficulty maintaining the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. We believe it is reasonable to conclude that emissions from Idaho do not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    III. Proposed Action

    The EPA has reviewed the December 24, 2015 submittal from the Idaho DEQ demonstrating that sources in Idaho do not significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the NO2 NAAQS in any other state. We have also reviewed recent monitoring data and regulatory provisions in the Federally-approved Idaho SIP. Based on our review, we are proposing to find that the Idaho SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and

    • does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 27, 2016. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02846 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15 and 74 [OET Docket Nos. 14-165, 14-166 and 12-268; Report No. 3037] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in a Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by Howard S. Shapiro, on behalf of Audio-Technica U.S., Inc., Laura Stefani, on behalf of Sennheiser Electronic Corp., Paul Margie, on behalf of Google Inc., Paula Boyd, on behalf of Microsoft Corporation, Stephen E. Coran, on behalf of Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Rick Kaplan, on behalf of National Association of Broadcasters, Lawrence J. Movshin, on behalf of WMTS Coalition, Catherine Wang, on behalf of Shure Incorporated, Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on behalf GE Healthcare, Gordon Moore, on behalf of Lectrosonics, Inc. and Telecommunications Law Professionals PLLC, on behalf of Carlson Wireless Technologies, Inc. and Cal.net, Inc.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 29, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hugh Van Tuyl, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-7506, email: [email protected] Paul Murray, Policy and Rules Division, Offiice of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-0688, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3037, released January 12, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A) because this notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Number of Petitions Filed: 12.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02899 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Denial of petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on the agency's evaluation, NHTSA denies a petition for rulemaking from Mr. David K. Aberizk, P.E., of Integrated Consultants Incorporated, who requests the development of safety standards for a driver-activated vehicle regenerative braking interface with distinct rear lighting indication. The petitioner claims that the recommended changes to the relevant safety standards would allow vehicle manufacturers to better utilize the regenerator technology to increase vehicle efficiency. NHTSA finds that some features of the suggested concept are not prohibited by existing Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and notes that Mr. Aberizk did not demonstrate how the other features address a motor vehicle safety need. FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 currently specify performance requirements relevant to certain permitted technologies identified in the petition.

    DATES:

    February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lisa Gavin, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of Petition II. Agency Analysis III. Agency Decision I. Summary of Petition

    On April 14, 2012, David K. Aberizk, P.E., petitioned NHTSA requesting development of safety standards for a driver-activated vehicle regenerative braking interface with a distinct rear indicator lamp.1 On July 14, 2013, Mr. Aberizk submitted additional information in the format of a petition for rulemaking. The agency considers these two submissions as one petition for rulemaking because both pertain to the same concept of driver-activated vehicle regenerative braking. Specifically, Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the location and geometric parameters for a brake control device and the actions required for safe operation. Additionally, Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the parameters for a rear lamp to signal vehicle slowing.

    1 Original petition available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0010-0003.

    Mr. Aberizk states that regenerator technology is currently integrated as a component of the conventional friction braking system in electric or hybrid electric motor vehicles, which limits the potential of the device to recover energy. He claims that hybrid and electric vehicles with driver-activated regenerative braking systems (RBS) increases overall efficiency by 6 percent over existing RBS.2

    2 Mr. Aberizk does not specify whether Graph 1 in Appendix A-1 of the additional data collected and reported July 14, 2013 refers to the overall efficiency of the vehicle at turning power into movement, or to the efficiency of the regenerative braking system in particular. As discussed further below, however, it is irrelevant to the agency's determination of whether to begin rulemaking to establish a new FMVSS.

    Mr. Aberizk recommends that the agency establish a new safety standard for regenerator engagement to adopt performance requirements, which he believes will interest automakers in embracing increased efficiency concepts, such as his operator-initiated slowing design. Mr. Aberizk provided graphic illustrations showing potential locations for an activation control device on the steering wheel or gear selector, and an expanded center high-mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) assembly. In his first information submission, Mr. Aberizk refers the reader to the Integrated Consultants Incorporated Web site for additional details on the driver-activated RBS empirical test findings and his U.S. patent, Vehicle Regenerative Deceleration Actuator and Indicator System and Method.

    In his supplemental submission, Mr. Aberizk states that current RBS technologies underutilize the potential of brake regenerators to increase vehicle efficiency. With an operator-initiated slowing feature added to existing RBSs, Mr. Aberizk claims that overall efficiency increases by 6 percent in hybrid and electric vehicles, and by at least 2.5 percent for mild-hybrid vehicles. As presented, the slowing concept relies on the driver to manually engage the regenerator to slow the vehicle, independent of the brake pedal application. Finally, Mr. Aberizk included a summary of the comment and the attachment he submitted to NHTSA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for model years 2017 and beyond.3

    3 Mr. Aberizk's comment to that NPRM can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0131-0278.

    II. Analysis of Petition

    Although the submission met the requirements to be accepted as a rulemaking petition, NHTSA does not endorse specific products, designs, or equipment, as Mr. Aberizk requests. NHTSA develops and issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to reduce crashes, deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle crashes.4 Motor vehicle safety standards are primarily performance standards, intended to allow manufacturers to choose which products, designs, and equipment best satisfy the requirements. That said, in the interest of completeness, the agency conducted a technical review of Mr. Aberizk's petition. Because the petition involves topics related to multiple FMVSSs, the agency's technical review of the slowing device was separate from its review of the illumination indicator.

    4 See 49 U.S. Code § 30101, Purpose and Policy, section (1).

    Slowing Device

    Mr. Aberizk requests that NHTSA define the location and geometric parameters for an operator activated slowing control device with a human-machine interface required for safe operation. Mr. Aberizk offers anecdotal observations and evaluations, but did not submit quantitative data. For vehicles configured with the slowing device, he claims a `noticeable' increase in range for test distances of 15 miles or greater, as well as a 50 to 75 percent reduction in brake pedal usage. The petition does not, however, assess how these factors, if accurate, would lead to safety benefits attributable to the driver-activated slowing concept. Additionally, NHTSA is not aware of any data that establish a correlation between enhanced RBS performance and reduced crash rates.

    Perhaps more relevant, however, we note that a manually-enhanced feature to increase recovered braking energy is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 135, the light vehicle braking standard that includes requirements for the service brake system, associated parking brake system, and optional regenerative braking systems. FMVSS No. 135 defines RBS as an electrical energy system that is installed in an electric vehicle for recovering or dissipating kinetic energy and which uses the propulsion motor(s) as a retarder for partial braking of the electric vehicle while returning electrical energy to the propulsion battery(s) or dissipating electrical energy. FMVSS No. 135 expressly states that for an electric vehicle equipped with RBS, the RBS is considered to be part of the service brake system, if it is automatically activated by an application of the service brake control, if there is no means provided for the driver to disconnect or otherwise deactivate it, and if it is activated in all transmission positions, including neutral. For an electric vehicle that is equipped with antilock brake system (ABS) and RBS that is part of the service brake system, the ABS must control the RBS. A vehicle equipped with or without RBS must meet the stopping performance requirements of FMVSS No. 135.

    Information compiled by the Federal government estimates the combined city/highway driving energy recovered by regenerative braking to be 5 to 9 percent.5 Mr. Aberizk claims that vehicles with driver-activated RBS would incrementally increase the energy recovered by an additional 2.5 to 6 percent. Although the amount of energy recovered may be considered economically beneficial, it is not a safety concern that warrants the adoption of a safety standard. Mr. Aberizk extolled the fuel economy benefits of the technology in support of his petition, but fuel economy benefits are not relevant to whether a technology will improve safety. Moreover, even in the CAFE program, NHTSA does not mandate the use of particular technologies. Like the FMVSSs, CAFE standards are performance standards. Manufacturers are free to choose whatever technologies they wish, and NHTSA does not specify particular technologies in that context either.

    5http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-hev.shtml (2% to 4% highway driving and 8% to 14% city driving).

    Illumination Indicator

    In the petition, Mr. Aberizk also requests that NHTSA define the parameters for an additional rear lamp to signal vehicle slowing. Because we are denying the petition with respect to braking, we need not address the part of the petition related to lighting because without a new brake requirement, there is no need for a new lighting requirement.

    In order for NHTSA to consider establishing a new safety standard, the agency must determine that a safety need exists and that the suggested concept will reduce the crash risk. For example, NHTSA completed rulemaking action to require center high mounted stop lamps as standard lighting equipment after extensive research that quantified the crash problem and estimated the safety impact and the effectiveness of the new equipment.6 Hence, a petitioner bears the burden of providing data to justify the safety need for the recommended amendments to the relevant safety standard.7

    6 See 48 FR 48235, October 18, 1983.

    7 See Statement of Policy published in 63 FR 59482, on November 4, 1998.

    Finally, Mr Aberizk claims that development of safety standards will keep product liability of an operator-initiated slowing system neutral to the industry. Because NHTSA regulates motor vehicle safety and not tort liability, the agency refrains from drawing legal conclusions about Mr. Aberizk's operator-initiated slowing device.

    III. Agency Decision

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition for rulemaking. NHTSA believes that the current requirements specified in FMVSS Nos. 108 and 135 do not prohibit certain features suggested in the petition. The petitioner did not demonstrate a safety need or substantiate claims of reduced crash risk associated with the petitioned concept. Therefore, NHTSA denies David K. Aberizk's petition.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02763 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 216 and 300 RIN 0648-AX63 Trade Monitoring Procedures for Fishery Products; International Trade in Seafood; Permit Requirements for Importers and Exporters; Public Meeting; Correction AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Marine Fisheries Service published a document in the Federal Register of February 8, 2016, concerning a public webinar to present details of a previously issued proposed rule (which published December 29, 2015) for electronic filing of seafood trade documents. The document contained an incorrect date for the webinar.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Wildman, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection; telephone: (301) 427-8350.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of February 8, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-02418, on page 6489, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to read:

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 17, 2016, from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. eastern standard time. Written comments on the proposed rule (December 29, 2015; 80 FR 81251) must be received by February 29, 2016.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Jeffrey Weir, Acting Director, Office for International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-03053 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 665 RIN 0648-XD907 Pacific Island Fisheries; Hawaii Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish; Revised Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of fishery ecosystem plan amendment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) proposes to amend the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Fisheries of the Hawaiian Archipelago. If approved, Amendment 4 would revise the descriptions of essential fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for 14 species of bottomfish and three species of seamount groundfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago. The proposed action considers the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fisheries, and supports the long-term sustainability of fishery resources.

    DATES:

    NMFS must receive comments on the proposed amendment by April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0056, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0056, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd. Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

    Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. All comments received are a part of the public record, and NMFS will generally post them 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).

    The Council prepared Amendment 4 that provides background information on the proposed action. The amendment is available from www.regulations.gov or the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808-522-8220, fax 808-522-8226, www.wpcouncil.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Dunlap, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS PIR, 808-725-5177.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS and the Council manage Hawaii fisheries under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Fisheries of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Typically, the Council recommends conservation and management measures for NMFS to implement under the authority of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains EFH provisions to identify and protect important habitats of federally-managed fish. EFH are those waters and substrates necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, and grow to maturity. HAPC are a subset of EFH, and HAPC criteria include the importance of the habitat's ecological function, the extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation, what development activities are or will be stressing the habitat, and the rarity of the habitat type. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or undertake activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and to respond to NMFS recommendations.

    The Council and NMFS have improved their understanding of the life histories and specific habitat requirements of Hawaii bottomfish and seamount groundfish. After considering the new information, the Council recommended revising the EFH and HAPC designations in the FEP.

    NMFS must receive comments on the proposed amendment by April 12, 2016 for consideration in the decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove the amendment.

    Current EFH and HAPC for Hawaii Bottomfish

    The current designation for overall EFH for Hawaii bottomfish is the “water column extending from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the 200-mile EEZ [Exclusive Economic Zone] to a depth of 400 m.” The current designation for HAPC is “all escarpments and slopes between 40-280 m and three known areas of juvenile P. [Pristipimoides] filamentosus habitat” (Table 1).

    Current EFH and HAPC for Hawaii Seamount Groundfish

    The overall EFH for Hawaii seamount groundfish is currently defined as the “water column and bottom habitat from 0-600 m in the EEZ, bounded by latitude 29°-35° N., and longitude 171° E.,-179° W.” The seamount groundfish EFH encompasses the Hancock Seamounts, part of the northern extent of the Hawaiian Ridge, located 1,500 miles northwest of Honolulu. Currently, there are no HAPC designations for Hawaii seamount groundfish (Table 1).

    Table 1—Current EFH and HAPC for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Species assemblage EFH
  • (eggs)
  • EFH
  • (larvae)
  • EFH
  • (juveniles)
  • EFH
  • (adults)
  • HAPC
  • (all life stages)
  • Bottomfish Shallow Complex
  • Bottomfish Deep Complex
  • Water column extending from the shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ to a depth of 400 m. Water column and bottom habitat extending from shoreline to a depth of 400 m. All escarpments and slopes between 40-280 m and three known areas of juvenile P. filamentosus habitat.
    Seamount Groundfish Epipelagic zone (0 to 200 m depth) of all waters bounded by 29°-35° N., and 171° E.-179° W. Water column and bottom habitat from 80 m to 600 m, bounded by 29°-35° N. and 171° E.-179° W Not identified.
    Proposed Changes to EFH and HAPC of Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish of the Hawaiian Archipelago Bottomfish

    Under the changes proposed in Amendment 4, the overall EFH designation for Hawaii bottomfish would remain the same, i.e., waters 0-400 m deep within the EEZ. The Council's recommendations are a refinement with respect to which life stages and species assemblages are associated with a particular EFH designation. The amendment proposes to revise descriptions of habitat importance for individual species, which reflects updated information about depth range and life history for each life stage of each bottomfish. The amendment proposes to designate EFH for three bottomfish complexes (shallow, intermediate, and deep) instead of the current two (shallow and deep). The amendment proposes replacing the previous life stage terms of larvae, juvenile, and adults with the terms post-hatch pelagic, post-settlement, and sub-adult/adult, respectively. The amendment uses the term “pelagic” to refer to the water column that excludes bottom habitat, “benthopelagic” for the water column and benthic habitat, and “benthic” for the bottom habitat and the immediately adjacent waters in which a bottom-dwelling fish might live. Revised HAPC designations are for seven distinct sites in the main Hawaiian Islands (Table 2).

    Seamount Groundfish

    Under the changes proposed in Amendment 4, EFH for Hawaii seamount groundfish would be an area that overlaps the Hancock Seamounts Ecosystem Management area, or the waters within the EEZ north of 28° N. and west of 180° W. The proposed revisions to EFH for seamount groundfish involve distinctions over depth ranges at various life stages. The Council is proposing to designate the same area described for EFH above as HAPC for seamount groundfish (Table 2). Previously there were no HAPC designated for seamount groundfish in the Hawaiian archipelago.

    Table 2—Proposed EFH and HAPC for Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Species assemblage EFH
  • (eggs)
  • EFH
  • (post-hatch pelagic)
  • EFH
  • (post-settlement)
  • EFH
  • (sub-adult/adult)
  • HAPC
  • (all life stages)
  • Bottomfish Shallow Water column from 0-240 m depth extending Water column from 0-240 m depth extending Kaena Point, Oahu  Complex.  from the shoreline to the outer boundary of  from the shoreline to the outer boundary of  Kaneohe Bay,  the EEZ.  the EEZ.  Oahu Makapuu, Bottomfish Inter- Water column from 0-320 m depth extending Water column from 40-320 m depth from the  Oahu Penguin  mediate Complex.  from the shoreline to the outer boundary of  shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ.  Bank, Oahu Pailolo  the EEZ.  Channel, Maui Bottomfish Deep Com- Water column from 0-400 m depth extending Water column from 80-400 m depth from the  North Kahoolawe,  plex.  from the shoreline to the outer boundary of  shoreline to the outer boundary of the EEZ.  Kahoolawe Hilo,  the EEZ.  Hawaii (see Amendment text and Appendices 4 and 5 for specific site locations). Seamount Groundfish Pelagic waters 0-600 m depth within the EEZ north of 29° N., and west of 179° W. Benthic or benthopelagic waters from 120-600 m depth within the EEZ north of 29° N., and west of 179° W Benthopelagic waters from 120-600 m depth within the EEZ north of 29° N. and west of 179° W All waters from 0-600 m depth within the EEZ north of 29° N., and west of 179° W.
    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02843 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 29 Friday, February 12, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Institute of Food and Agriculture Request for Public Engagement in the Interagency Special Report `2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR-2)' AGENCY:

    National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) on behalf of the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Request for Public Comments on a Draft Report. Prospectus, Technical Input, and Nominations for Technical Contributors.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program and the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group (CCIWG), under the auspices of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), are initiating an Interagency Special Report entitled the 2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report (referred to as “SOCCR-2” or “the Report” throughout this notice). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has agreed to be lead agency for this report as it is relevant to USDA and USDA has experience in producing a similar highly successful report of Climate Change and Food Security. The focus of SOCCR-2 will be on U.S. and North American carbon cycle processes, stocks, and flows in the context of and interactions with global scale budgets and climate change impacts in managed and unmanaged systems. Carbon stocks and fluxes in soils, water (including oceans), vegetation, aquatic-terrestrial interfaces (e.g., coastal, estuaries, wetlands), human settlements, agriculture and forestry are included. The Report will consider relevant carbon management science perspectives and science-based tools for supporting and informing decisions, as addressed in and related to the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (2011), and other documents such as the USGCRP Strategic Plan (2012) and the White House Climate Action Plan (2013). The status of, and emerging opportunities for, improving measurements, observations and projections of stocks and fluxes in the carbon cycle, including uncertainty identification, will be part of the Report. SOCCR-2 will be a product of the USGCRP, organized and led by the Agency members of the CCIWG. This request for public engagement presents opportunities to (1) submit comments on the Draft Report Prospectus, (2) submit scientific/technical information to inform the assessment, and (3) nominate technical contributors.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the Draft Prospectus, technical information, and nominations for technical contributors must be received by 5:00 p.m., ET on March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the Draft Prospectus, technical information, and nominations for technical contributors must be submitted electronically via https://www.globalchange.gov/notices.

    Instructions: Response to this notice is voluntary. Respondents need not reply to all components. Responses to this notice may be used by the government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. NIFA therefore requests that no business proprietary information or copyrighted information be submitted in response to this notice. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information contained in the response.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USGCRP Contact: Dr. Gyami Shrestha; telephone 202-223-6262; or email: [email protected]

    NIFA Contact: Dr. Nancy Cavallaro; telephone 202-401-5176; or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Request for Comments on the Draft Prospectus A. How To Submit Comments on the Draft Prospectus

    The Draft Prospectus describes the proposed plans for scoping, drafting, reviewing, producing, and disseminating SOCCR-2. Comments are specifically sought on the Draft Report outline (including the draft table of contents), proposed topics, and process as outlined in the Draft Prospectus. The Draft Prospectus and instructions to submit comments can be found at http://www.globalchange.gov/notices. Section I(B) below provides a brief summary of the prospectus.

    B. Summary of the Draft Prospectus for the Interagency Special Report `2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR-2)' 1. Overview

    The SOCCR-2 report is a synthesis and assessment focusing on U.S. and North American carbon cycle processes, stocks, and flows in the context of and interactions with global scale budgets and climate change impacts in managed and unmanaged systems.

    2. Proposed Focus Areas and Table of Contents

    Current status and near-term projections for each topic will be included. If and where possible, modeling and multi-model syntheses of the carbon cycle will be included. As appropriate, each chapter will address cross-cutting themes such as: Land use change, fluxes, feedbacks, historical context, indicators and trends, societal impacts, North American and global scales (based on the 2014 National Climate Assessment regions), carbon management, impacts of decisions, and research needs. The expanded draft table of contents can be found on http://www.globalchange.gov/notices.

    Preface—The Preface will explain the importance of the carbon cycle to climate, the scope and rationale for SOCCR-2, and key developments since SOCCR-1.

    Chapter 1: Global carbon cycle overview—Chapter 1 will contain an overview of major elements of the coupled global carbon cycle (i.e., carbon dioxide and methane) as well as discuss key interactions with climate forcing and feedback components from a global perspective.

    Chapter 2: Carbon cycle at scales—Chapter 2 will provide an assessment of the North American carbon cycle (scaled down from the global system in chapter 1), including updated regional, and local perspectives on key carbon stocks and flows.

    Chapter 3: Carbon in natural and anthropogenic systems—major stocks, flows, uncertainties, broader social drivers, carbon decisions—Chapter 3 will provide an assessment of key carbon stocks (e.g., soils, aquatic systems, vegetation, urban, livestock, oceans, etc.) and the flows within and between these pools, including key uncertainties and social drivers. Example Focus Areas that may be incorporated in the above include urban carbon, Arctic carbon, livestock and wildlife.

    Chapter 4: Interactions/disturbance: Impacts to the carbon cycle—Chapter 4 will focus on the role of disturbances, such as fire, ocean acidification, pathogens, land use change, etc. on the carbon cycle.

    Chapter 5: Carbon cycle information, management practices, tools and needs at various scales—Chapter 5 will assess the role of recent carbon management practices and highlight the current state of carbon data management, monitoring systems, tools, and carbon relevant modeling scenarios.

    Chapter 6: Synthesis, conclusions, gaps in knowledge, and (near) future outlook—Chapter 6 will provide an overarching synthesis of the current state of the carbon cycle while identifying key knowledge gaps/opportunities and a near-term outlook on the North American Carbon cycle.

    C. Process 1. Audience and Communications

    The audience includes scientists, decision-makers in the public and private sectors and the general interested community across the U.S., extending to North American and global regions. The report may ultimately be used to inform policies but will not prescribe or recommend them.

    2. Technical Contributors and Required Expertise

    The SOCCR-2 Report will be a federal interagency report. Technical contributors may be federal employees, academic scientists, private and nonprofit sector representatives, and others as appropriate and in alignment with federal requirements. The technical contributors will be selected based on their scientific expertise; demonstrated accomplishments; academic interests and knowledge in the thematic areas specified in the draft outline; time availability; and technical capability to work in this type of broad interdisciplinary and cross-cutting scientific assessment setting. The main roles and responsibilities of the technical contributors may include compiling the necessary background literature; synthesizing, analyzing and interpreting the existing science; and contributing intellectual and technical input. The process for nominating technical contributors is provided in Section III below.

    3. Agency Roles

    A Federal Steering Committee of the USGCRP's SOCCR-2 has been established to provide guidance and coordination to the report authors and staff. The Committee members represent CCIWG member departments and agencies including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    4. Information Quality and Peer Review

    The USGCRP's 2nd State of the Carbon Cycle Report will use referenced materials derived primarily from the existing, peer-reviewed scientific literature and consistent with guidance regarding the use of other literature. This report will follow the USDA Information Quality Guidelines and administrative processes (http://nifa.usda.gov/resource/usda-information-quality) including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) federal information quality, transparency, and accessibility guidelines appropriate for a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) (http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05-03.pdf). The report will undergo peer review by the National Academy of Sciences, public review, and final interagency clearance.

    5. Process for Public Engagement

    The written comments on the Draft Prospectus, technical information, and nominations for technical contributors called for in this notice are the first opportunities for public participation in the SOCCR-2 report process. Federal Steering committee will provide several opportunities for public engagement with the scientific community throughout the report scoping, planning and writing process via special presentations, sessions, town hall meetings and side-events at national and international scientific conferences. A public review period for the Draft SOCCR-2 will also be announced via a Federal Register notice, after its completion. Updates will be provided on https://www.carboncyclescience.us/ as available.

    6. Proposed Timing

    SOCCR-2, with a likely release in 2017, is designed to inform the next quadrennial National Climate Assessment (due in 2018).

    II. Call for Relevant Scientific Information To Inform the Special Report

    Interested parties are invited to assist in contributing, collecting and refining the scientific information base for this special report. To do so, parties are asked to submit recent, relevant scientific and/or technical research studies including observed, modeled and/or projected carbon cycle science information that have been peer reviewed and published or accepted for publication in scientific journals and/or government reports. All scientific literature submitted in response to this call for information must be received by 5:00 p.m., ET on March 14, 2016.

    Submissions must be uploaded electronically via the link provided on http://www.globalchange.gov/notices.

    III. Call for Nominations for Technical Contributors

    This notice seeks nominations for technical contributors to SOCCR-2 with pertinent subject matter expertise and scientific background. Potential technical contributors should be accomplished scholarly writers and have demonstrated scientific and technical expertise and academic proficiency in at least one of the carbon cycle science topics outlined in the prospectus (available via www.globalchange.gov/notices), including the human dimensions of carbon cycle sciences. Submissions must demonstrate that nominees have demonstrated technical backgrounds, such that they could contribute to the development of a robust scientific, technical assessment as subject matter experts in one or more of the topics listed under Section 2 above and in the Draft Prospectus.

    Responses to this request must be received by 5:00 p.m., ET on March 14, 2016. Please follow instructions on www.globalchange.gov/notices. Interested persons may nominate themselves or third parties, and may nominate more than one person. Each nomination must include: (1) The nominee's full name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information; (2) the nominee's area(s) of expertise; (3) a short description of his/her qualifications relative to contributing to SOCCR-2; and (4) a current resume (maximum length four [4] pages). Nominations will be reviewed, and nominees may be invited to participate as technical contributors to SOCCR-2.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 8th day of February, 2016. Sonny Ramaswamy, Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02927 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utility Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request February 9, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (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; (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 14, 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.

    Rural Utilities Service

    Title: 7 CFR 1744-C, Advance and Disbursement of Funds—Telecommunications.

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0023.

    Summary of Collection: Section 201 of the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) of 1936 authorizes the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to make loans for the purpose of providing telephone service to the widest practicable number of rural subscribers. A borrower requesting loan advances must submit RUS Form 481, “Financial Requirement Statement”. Along with the Form 481 the borrower must also submit a description of the advances and upon request copies of backup documentation relating to the transactions. Within a reasonable amount of time, funds are advanced to the borrower for the purposes specified in the statement of purposes. The borrower must immediately deposit all advanced money into a Special Construction account until disbursed.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is used by RUS to record and control transactions and verify that the funds advanced in the construction fund are related directly to loan purposes. If the information were not collected, RUS would not have any control over how loan funds are spent or a record of the balance to be advanced.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 177.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,223.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02949 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Commission Briefing and Business Meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, February 19, 2016, at 9 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Place: National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 11th Floor, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20245 (Entrance on F Street NW.).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerson Gomez, Media Advisor at telephone: (202) 376-8371, TTY: (202) 376-8116 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This business meeting is open to the public. If you would like to listen to the briefing or business meeting, please contact the above for the call-in information.

    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at [email protected] at least seven business days before the scheduled date of the meeting. During the briefing portion, Commissioners will ask questions and discuss the briefing topic with the panelists. The public may submit written comments on the topic of the briefing to the above address for 30 days after the briefing. Please direct your comments to the attention of the “Staff Director” and clearly mark “Briefing Comments Inside” on the outside of the envelope. Please note we are unable to return any comments or submitted materials.

    Comments may also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    Meeting Agenda I. Approval of Agenda II. Quiet Crisis Briefing Federal Funding and the Unmet Physical and Legal Infrastructure Needs of Indian Country A. Opening Remarks: 9:00 a.m.-9:10 a.m. B. Panel 1: Native American Advocacy Groups: 9:10 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Speakers' Remarks • Jacqueline Pata, National Congress of the American Indian • Ahniwake Rose, National Indian Education Association • Stacey Bohlen, National Indian Health Board • Dante Desiderio, Native American Finance Officers Association • Sarah Deer, William Mitchell College of Law Questions from Commissioners C. Panel 2: Federal Government Officials: 10:35 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Speakers' Remarks • William Mendoza, White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education • Tracy Toulou, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice • Robert McSwain, Indian Health Service • Randy Akers, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Native Programs Questions from Commissioners III. Business Meeting A. Program Planning • Discussion and vote on the part B proposed findings and recommendations for the Peaceful Coexistence Report • Discussion of plan for revision of report on the effect of undocumented workers on African-American employment B. Advisory Committees • Vote on appointments to the Ohio Advisory Committee • Presentation by Mississippi Advisory Committee Chair on child care subsidies report C. Management and Operations • Staff Director's Report • Submission of Spending Plan to Congressional appropriation committees • Submission of FY2017 Budget justification transmitted to Congress as part of President's Budget Request D. Other V. Adjourn Meeting Dated: February 9, 2016. David Mussatt, Regional Programs Unit Chief, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02992 Filed 2-10-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-5-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 279—Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C. (Shipbuilding); Houma, Louisiana

    The Houma-Terrebonne Airport Commission, grantee of FTZ 279, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, L.L.C. (Thoma-Sea), located in Houma, Louisiana. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 3, 2016.

    A separate request for subzone designation at the Thoma-Sea facilities is planned and will be processed under Section 400.31 of the FTZ Board's regulations. The facilities are used for the construction and repair of oceangoing vessels. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Thoma-Sea from customs duty payments on the foreign status components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Thoma-Sea would be able to choose the duty rate during customs entry procedures that applies to oceangoing vessels (free) for the foreign status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign status production equipment.

    The components sourced from abroad include: plastic hoses; printed manuals; steel pipe fittings; doors; steel tanks; hatches/manholes; copper anodes; zinc rods; base metal mountings; outboard motors; parts of marine engines; parts of hydraulic pumps; hydraulic fluid pumps; compressors; portal/pedestal jib cranes; thruster parts; pressure-reducing valves; steel tank valves; vent check valves; machine parts of automated systems; electric motors; AC generators; speed drive controllers; power supplies; batteries; power cells; starter generators/motors; electric ignition starter parts; fuses; circuit boards; parts of electrical switching apparatus; insulated winding wire; liquid flow/level measuring instruments; parts of printed circuit assemblies; and, parts of measuring instruments (duty rate ranges from free to 5.7%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 23, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Pierre Duy at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

    Dated: February, 2, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02993 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-853] Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From Canada: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from Canada. The period of review (POR) is May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Jungbunzlauer Canada Inc. (JBL Canada). We preliminarily determine that sales of subject merchandise by JBL Canada were not made at prices below normal value (NV). We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Trainor or Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4007 or (202) 482-4929, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is citric acid and certain citrate salts from Canada. The product is currently classified under subheadings 2918.14.0000, 2918.15.1000, 2918.15.5000, and 3824.90.9290 of the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of merchandise subject to the scope is dispositive.1

    1 A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada; 2014-2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with these results and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Constructed export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary 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).2 ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content. A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is attached as an Appendix to this notice.

    2 On November 14, 2014, Enforcement and Compliance changed the name of Enforcement and Compliance's AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS) to AD and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). The Web site location was changed from http://iaacess.trade.gov to http://access.trade.gov. The Final Rule changing the references to the Regulations can be found at 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014).

    Preliminary Results of the Review  3

    3 As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary determination of this administrative review is now February 5, 2016.

    As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily determines that a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.00 percent exists for JBL Canada for the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.4 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.5 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to be discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. See 19 CFR 351.310(d). Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, unless the deadline is extended.6

    6See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.7

    7See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    We calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales to that importer. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or the importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.8

    8See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 2012); see also 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for JBL Canada will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1) (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 23.21 percent, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.9 These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    9See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Orders, 74 FR 25703 (May 29, 2009).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Discussion of the Methodology A. Fair Value Comparisons 1. Determination of Comparison Method 2. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis B. Product Comparisons C. Constructed Export Price D. Normal Value 1. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Market 2. Level of Trade (LOT) E. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test F. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices G. Currency Conversion V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-02996 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-837, A-570-954, C-570-955] Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks From Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) orders on certain magnesia carbon bricks (“MCBs”) from Mexico and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) and the countervailing duty (“CVD”) order on MCBs from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Hawkins, 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) 482-6491.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On August 3, 2015 the Department published a notice of initiation of the first sunset review of the AD orders on MCBs from Mexico and the PRC, and the CVD order on MCBs from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).1 As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and that revocation of the CVD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies. The Department, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and net countervailable subsidy rates likely to prevail should the antidumping orders and the countervailing duty order be revoked.2 On February 2, 2016, the ITC published notice of its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD and CVD orders on MCBs from Mexico and the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 45945 (August 3, 2015) (“Initiation”).

    2See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from Mexico and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders, 80 FR 76447 (December 9, 2015) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum; see also Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 80 FR 75971 (December 7, 2015).

    3See Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Determination, 81 FR 5484 (February 2, 2016); see also Certain Magnesia Carbon Bricks from the People's Republic of China: Investigation No. 701-TA-468 and 731-TA-1166-1167, USITC Publication 4589 (January, 2016).

    Scope of the Orders

    Imports covered by the orders consist of certain chemically bonded (resin or pitch), MCBs with a magnesia component of at least 70 percent magnesia (“MgO”) by weight, regardless of the source of raw materials for the MgO, with carbon levels ranging from trace amounts to 30 percent by weight, regardless of enhancements, (for example, MCBs can be enhanced with coating, grinding, tar impregnation or coking, high temperature heat treatments, anti-slip treatments or metal casing) and regardless of whether or not anti-oxidants are present (for example, antioxidants can be added to the mix from trace amounts to 15 percent by weight as various metals, metal alloys, and metal carbides).

    Certain MCBs that are the subject of this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 6902.10.1000, 6902.10.5000, 6815.91.0000, 6815.99.2000, and 6815.99.4000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive.

    Continuation of the Orders

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD and CVD orders would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD orders on MCBs from Mexico and the PRC and the CVD order on MCBs from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD and CVD duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise.

    The effective date of the continuation of the orders will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the orders not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    This five-year (“sunset”) review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4)

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02994 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-815] Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily finds that Agir Haddecilik A.S. (Haddecilik) did not make sales at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR). The POR is May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain welded carbon quality light-walled steel pipe and tube, of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a wall thickness of less than 4 millimeters. The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States at subheadings 7306.61.50.00 and 7306.61.70.60.

    For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey: Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with this notice and is hereby incorporated by reference.1 The Preliminary 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://iaaccess.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1 A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum appears in the Appendix to this notice.

    Tolling and Postponement of Deadline for Preliminary Results

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government. All deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review is now February 5, 2016.2

    2See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016. See also Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price (EP) is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015:

    Exporter or producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Agir Haddecilik A.S 0.00
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.4 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.5 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed using ACCESS.6

    3See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    6See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.7 Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, parties will be notified of the date and time of the hearing to be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    7See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in all written case briefs, within 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.8 If Haddecilik's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or de minimis in the final results of this review, we will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for an importer's examined sales and the total entered value of such sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). If Haddecilik's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis in the final results of review, or an importer-specific rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate un-reviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company involved in the transaction.9

    8 In these preliminary results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012).

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Haddecilik will be the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review except if the rate is de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 27.04 percent ad valorem, the all-others rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation.10 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    10See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube From Turkey, 73 FR 31065 (May 30, 2008).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Methodology Fair Value Comparisons Product Comparisons Determination of Comparison Method Date of Sale U.S. Price Duty Drawback Normal Value Currency Conversion Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-02995 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-983] Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks From the People's Republic of China AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with regard to Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd. (Ningbo). We preliminarily determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. (Yuyao) for purposes of determining AD liability. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ross Belliveau or Brian Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4952 or (202) 482-1766.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 11, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register an AD order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC.1 On November 19, 2015, Ningbo, a producer/exporter of drawn stainless steel sinks covered by this order, changed its name from Yuyao to Ningbo. On December 22, 2015, Ningbo requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review under section 19 U.S.C. 1675(b) and 19 CFR 351.216.2 In this request, Ningbo asked the Department to determine that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao and, accordingly, to assign it the cash deposit rate of Yuyao.3

    1See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 78 FR 21592 (April 11, 2013).

    2See Letter from Ningbo, entitled “Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Request for Changed Circumstances Review by Yuyao Afa Kitchenware Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Afa Kitchen and Bath Co., Ltd.,” dated December 22, 2015 (Ningbo CCR Request).

    3Id.

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by the scope of this order are drawn stainless steel sinks with single or multiple drawn bowls, with or without drain boards, whether finished or unfinished, regardless of type of finish, gauge, or grade of stainless steel. Mounting clips, fasteners, seals, and sound-deadening pads are also covered by the scope of this order if they are included within the sales price of the drawn stainless steel sinks. For purposes of this scope definition, the term “drawn” refers to a manufacturing process using metal forming technology to produce a smooth basin with seamless, smooth, and rounded corners. Drawn stainless steel sinks are available in various shapes and configurations and may be described in a number of ways including flush mount, top mount, or undermount (to include the attachment relative to the countertop). Stainless steel sinks with multiple drawn bowls that are joined through a welding operation to form one unit are covered by the scope of the order. Drawn stainless steel sinks are covered by the scope of the order whether or not they are sold in conjunction with non-subject accessories such as faucets (whether attached or unattached), strainers, strainer sets, rinsing baskets, bottom grids, or other accessories.

    Excluded from the scope of the order are stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls. Fabricated bowls do not have seamless corners, but rather are made by notching and bending the stainless steel, and then welding and finishing the vertical corners to form the bowls. Stainless steel sinks with fabricated bowls may sometimes be referred to as “zero radius” or “near zero radius” sinks.

    The products covered by this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 7324.10.0000 and 7324.10.0010. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review

    Pursuant to section 751(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the Department will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party for a review of an AD order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. The information submitted by Ningbo supporting its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao demonstrates changed circumstances sufficient to warrant such a review.4

    4See 19 CFR 351.216(d).

    In accordance with the above-referenced regulation, the Department is initiating a CCR to determine whether Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. When it concludes that expedited action is warranted, the Department may publish the notice of initiation and preliminary results for a CCR concurrently.5 We determined that expediting this CCR is warranted because we have the information necessary to make a preliminary finding already on the record, in accordance with our practice.6

    5See 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii); see also Certain Pasta From Italy: Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 33480, 33480-41 (June 12, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Certain Pasta From Italy: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 48807 (August 14, 2015) (Pasta From Italy Final Results)).

    6See, e.g., Pasta From Italy Preliminary Results, 80 FR at 33480-41 (unchanged in Pasta From Italy Final Results, 80 FR at 48807).

    In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another, the Department examines a number of factors including, but not limited to, changes in management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base.7 While no single factor or combination of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor.8 Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as the prior company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.9

    7See, e.g., Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 61702, 61703 (October 6, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results) (unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 75 FR 74684 (December 1, 2010) (Shrimp From Thailand Final Results)); and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944, 6946 (February 14, 1994).

    8See, e.g., Shrimp From Thailand Preliminary Results, 75 FR at 61703 (unchanged in Shrimp From Thailand Final Results, 75 FR at 74684).

    9Id.; see also Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58, 59 (January 2, 2002); and Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, 75 FR 34688, 34689 (June 18, 2010).

    In its December 22, 2015 submission, Ningbo provided information to demonstrate that it is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. Ningbo states that the company's ownership, location/production facilities, management, and customer base have not changed as a result of the corporate name change. It states further that its suppliers have remained largely the same, with some suppliers added but none eliminated. To support its claims, Ningbo submitted the following documents: (1) A copy of Ningbo's old and new business licenses, issued on June 2, 2015, and November 19, 2015, respectively; 10 (2) a copy of the government certification and approval of the company's name change from Yuyao to Ningbo; 11 (3) an excerpt from Yuyao's June 25, 2015, separate rate application documenting the ownership of the company; 12 (4) an excerpt from Yuyao's June 25, 2015, separate rate application listing the company's management team; 13 (5) a listing of the company's suppliers before and after its name change.14 Ningbo also submitted information pertaining to its location/production facilities and U.S. customer base.15

    10See Ningbo CCR Request at Exhibit 1.

    11Id. at Exhibit 2.

    12Id. at Exhibit 3.

    13Id. at Exhibit 4.

    14Id. at Exhibit 5.

    15Id. at 3-4.

    Based on the evidence on the record, we preliminarily find that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao. We find that Ningbo operates as the same business entity as Yuyao and that its ownership, management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed as a result of its name change. Thus, we preliminarily find that Ningbo should receive the same antidumping duty cash deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as Yuyao, its predecessor company.16

    16 Yuyao received a 4.29 percent dumping margin in the 2012-2014 administrative review of the AD order on drawn stainless steel sinks from the PRC. See Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012-2014, 80 FR 69644, 69645 (November 10, 2015). We note that Yuyao is also a respondent in the current 2014-2015 administrative review of this antidumping duty order. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 30041, 30046 (May 26, 2015). At the conclusion of this CCR, if we determine that Ningbo is the successor-in-interest to Yuyao, we will assign Ningbo an updated cash deposit rate based on the final results of the ongoing review.

    Should our final results remain the same as these preliminary results, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend entries of subject merchandise exported by Ningbo at Yuyao's cash deposit rate, effective on the publication date of our final results.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 14 days after the publication of this notice.17 Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.18 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this changed circumstances review are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. Interested parties who wish to comment on the preliminary results must file briefs electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on the date the document is due.

    17See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    18See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties that wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS, within 14 days of publication of this notice.19 Parties will be notified of the time and date of any hearing, if requested.20

    19See 19 CFR 351.310(c); see also 19 CFR 351.303 for general filing requirements.

    20See 19 CFR 351.310.

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this changed circumstance review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

    We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02997 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number 151103999-6076-02] Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is extending the period for submitting comments relating to the “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” (the “Framework”) through February 23, 2016. In a Request for Information (RFI) that published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2015 (80 FR 76934), NIST requested information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used to improve cybersecurity risk management, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared, the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, and options for the long-term governance of the Framework. NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 RFI from February 9, 2016 to February 23, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 23, 2016. Comments received after February 9, 2016 and before publication of this notice are deemed to be timely.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by mail to Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to [email protected] in any of the following formats: HTML; ASCII; Word; RTF; or PDF. Please include your name and your organization's name (if any), and cite “Views on the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” in all correspondence. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Please do not submit additional materials.

    All comments received in response to this RFI will be posted at http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/cybersecurity-framework-rfi.cfm without change or redaction, so commenters should not include information they do not wish to be posted (e.g., personal or confidential business information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this RFI contact: Diane Honeycutt, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8930, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NIST's Office of Public Affairs at (301) 975-2762.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 Request for Information (RFI) (80 FR 76934) through February 23, 2016. NIST is authorized by the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 1 to “facilitate and support the development of a voluntary, consensus-based, industry-led set of standards, guidelines, best practices, methodologies, procedures, and processes to cost-effectively reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure.” 2 Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” 3 tasked the Secretary of Commerce to direct the Director of NIST to lead the development of a framework to reduce cyber risks to critical infrastructure. A final version of Framework 1.0 was published on February 12, 2014, after a year-long, open process involving private and public sector organizations, including extensive industry input and public comments, and announced in the Federal Register (79 FR 9167) on February 18, 2014. On December 11, 2015 NIST published a RFI in the Federal Register (80 FR 76934) seeking information about the variety of ways in which the Framework is being used to improve cybersecurity risk management, how best practices for using the Framework are being shared, the relative value of different parts of the Framework, the possible need for an update of the Framework, and options for the long-term governance of the Framework. NIST is extending the comment period announced in the December 11, 2015 RFI from February 9, 2016 to February 23, 2016 to allow comments to be submitted during a timeframe in which a variety of cybersecurity events are scheduled to occur.

    1 Public Law 113-274 (2014): http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ274/pdf/PLAW-113publ274.pdf

    2Id., codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. 272(c)(15). Congress's intent was to codify NIST's role in Executive Order No. 13636: “Title I would codify certain elements of Executive Order 13636 by directing the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a framework of voluntary standards designed to reduce risks arising from cyberattacks on critical infrastructure that is privately owned and operated.” S. Rep. No. 113-270, at 9 (2014).

    3 Exec. Order No. 13636, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, 78 FR 11739 (Feb. 19, 2013).

    Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02860 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Socioeconomics of Ocean Guardian Schools—An Office of the National Marine Sanctuaries Educational Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 2,583.

    Average Hours Per Response: 20 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 861.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection to provide benefit throughout the sanctuary system and specifically our sites that work with Ocean Guardian Schools. The National Ocean Service (NOS) proposes to collect information from parents and teachers about the attitudes and preferences and economic value they receive from being involved with an Ocean Guardian school.

    Up-to-date socioeconomic data is needed to support the further development and improvement of Ocean Guardian Schools. These schools receive funding from the NOAA Office of Education and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Schools may apply for funding up to five years. A number of schools have continued their Ocean Guardian School projects after the five years. From 2010-2015, the total funding received by 71 schools was $544,315.

    Although the costs and sources of funding are known, there is limited information known about the economic value participants place on this program and the economic value created by these schools and their many activities. Currently, there is no information available that provides estimates of the value of education programs like Ocean Guardian to parents and teachers. Ocean Guardian Schools receive funding to develop projects to help protect the ocean in the future and promote ocean conservation and stewardship. Projects include recycling, beach clean-up days, installing rain barrels, installing wildlife structures, composting, and energy reduction.

    The types of data targeted for this collection are: attitudes and preferences towards the projects and student involvement, importance of/satisfaction with the program and attributes of the program, extent of reach (are parents aware of their student's involvement and are they too learning about ocean stewardship), level of teacher, student, parent and administrative involvement, and teachers' and parents' willingness to pay. The primary focus for the survey will be to gather data on parents' and teachers' willingness to pay for this program. Specifically, researchers will collect data to determine the economic value teachers, administrators and parents place on this program. The information collected will help to inform Ocean Guardian Schools about areas for improvement and the value that their programs create for the community.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02904 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE439 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Groundfish Management Team (GMT) will hold two webinars that are open to the public.

    DATES:

    The GMT webinars will be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. until 12 p.m. and on Monday, April 4, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    To attend the webinars: (1) Join the meetings by visiting this link http://www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar; (2) enter the Webinar ID: 137-048-875, and (3) enter your name and email address (required). After logging in to the webinars, please (1) dial this TOLL number +1 (415) 930-5321 (not a toll-free number); (2) enter the attendee phone audio access code 748-538-268; and (3) then enter your audio phone pin (shown after joining the webinar). The same log information will be used for both webinars. Participants are encouraged to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback (see http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/PFMC_Audio_Diagram_GoToMeeting.pdf PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram for best practices). Technical Information and System Requirements: PC-based attendees are required to use Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; Mac®-based attendees are required to use Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; Mobile attendees are required to use iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet (see the GoToMeeting WebinarApps). You may send an email to [email protected] or contact him at (503) 820-2280, extension 425 for technical assistance. A public listening station will also be available at the Pacific Council office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kelly Ames, Pacific Council, (503) 820-2426.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the GMT webinars are to prepare for the March and April 2016 Pacific Council meetings. The GMT may also address other assignments relating to groundfish management. No management actions will be decided by the GMT. Public comment will be accommodated if time allows, at the discretion of the GMT Chair. The GMT's task will be to develop recommendations for consideration by the Pacific Council at its March 8-14, 2016 meeting in Sacramento, CA and its April 8-14, 2016 meeting in Vancouver, WA.

    Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The public listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02933 Filed 2-11-16; 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 and a service 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: 3/13/2016.

    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 May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26548-26549) and November 16, 2015 (80 FR 70761-70762), 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 service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service 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 and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service 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 and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products Product Name(s)—NSN(s): Coat, Army Combat Uniform, Permethrin, Unisex, OCP 2015 8415-01-623-5052—XS-XXS 8415-01-623-5162—XS-XS 8415-01-623-5165—XS-S 8415-01-623-5166—XS-R 8415-01-623-5169—XS-L 8415-01-623-5170—XS-XL 8415-01-623-5172—S-XXS 8415-01-623-5174—S-XS 8415-01-623-5178—S-S 8415-01-623-5180—S-R 8415-01-623-5182—S-L 8415-01-623-5236—S-XL 8415-01-623-5237—M-XXS 8415-01-623-5525—M-XS 8415-01-623-5526—M-S 8415-01-623-5528—M-R 8415-01-623-5529—M-L 8415-01-623-5534—M-XL 8415-01-623-5537—M-XXL 8415-01-623-5541—L-XXS 8415-01-623-5542—L-XS 8415-01-623-5543—L-S 8415-01-623-5552—L-R 8415-01-623-5553—L-L 8415-01-623-5554—L-XL 8415-01-623-5557—L-XXL 8415-01-623-5740—XL-XXS 8415-01-623-5742—XL-XS 8415-01-623-5789—XL-S 8415-01-623-5790—XL-R 8415-01-623-5793—XL-L 8415-01-623-5795—XL-XL 8415-01-623-5796—XL-XXL 8415-01-623-5797—XXL-R 8415-01-623-5801—XXL-L 8415-01-623-5803—XXL-XL 8415-01-623-5805—XXL-XXL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Industries of the Blind, Inc., Greensboro, NC, Mississippi Industries for the Blind, Jackson, MS, San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Mandatory Purchase For: US Army; surge requirements as determined by DLA Troop Support that are above and beyond those quantities of ACU Coats allocated to small business, large business, and/or other purchase priority programs Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, PA Distribution: C-List

    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) operates pursuant to statutory and regulatory requirements. Committee regulations state for a commodity or service to be suitable for addition to the Procurement List, each of the following criteria must be satisfied: The addition to the Procurement List must demonstrate a potential to generate employment of people who are blind or have other severe disabilities; the nonprofit agency proposing to provide the product or service to the Federal Government must be qualified to participate in the AbilityOne program as defined in separate Committee regulations; the nonprofit agency must prove itself capable to deliver the product or service at the quality standard and delivery schedule required by the Government; and the Committee reviews the level of impact on the current contractor for the commodity or service.

    Federal Prison Industries (FPI) submitted a comment objecting to the proposed addition of the U.S. Army Combat Uniform Coat to the Procurement List. FPI asserts in its comments that, for items already listed on FPI's Schedule of Products like the proposed U.S. Army Combat Uniform Coat, a designated central nonprofit agency of the AbilityOne program must seek a waiver of FPI's purchase priority before requesting to add the same product to the Committee's Procurement List pursuant to 41 CFR 51-3.3. Normally, FPI products have a purchase priority over AbilityOne products, as stated in FAR subparts 8.002, 8.603 and 8.704.

    However, 10 U.S.C. 2410n and DFARS subpart 208.602-70 provide that, if FPI's share for the particular product is greater than five percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) market, then DOD must use competitive and fair opportunity procedures in order to purchase additional quantities from FPI, permitting FPI to participate in such competitive process which establishes that FPI no longer has a mandatory priority. The plain reading of both the statute and FAR provision is that FPI temporarily loses its mandatory purchase priority in DOD procurements when FPI provides more than five percent of the particular product market share to the DOD. In February 2015, DOD published its annual memorandum reporting that FPI's share of the DOD market for special purpose clothing, like the U.S. Army Combat Uniform Coat, is greater than five percent and must be competed in accordance with section 2410n and subpart 208.602-70. Because FPI does not have a purchase priority for the U.S. Army Combat Uniform Coat, then a designated AbilityOne Program central nonprofit agency is not required to obtain a decision from FPI as to whether it will exercise or waive its purchase priority before requesting to add a product to the Committee's Procurement List. Also, regardless of whether or not FPI has a particular product purchase priority, no statute or regulation prevents the simultaneous listing of the identical product on the Committee's Procurement List.

    In fact, the FAR subparts 8.603 and 8.704 contemplate a purchasing priority “when identical supplies or services are on the Procurement List and the Schedule of Products issued by the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.” For this particular product, FPI has lost its priority by operation of law, but the AbilityOne priority remains effective.

    Section 827 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA for FY2008, now 10 U.S.C. 2410n) and supplemental Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 208.602-70 do not apply to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day (JWOD) Act purchase priority established in 41 U.S.C. 8504 and implemented in FAR subpart 8.7. As preset forth at 10 U.S.C. 2410n, if FPI provides a significant market share of a particular product to DOD, then, by statute, DOD procurement activities may purchase a product listed in the latest edition of the Federal Prison Industries catalog for which Federal Prison Industries has a significant market share [defined as greater than 5%] only if the Secretary uses competitive procedures for the procurement or the product or makes an individual purchase under a multiple award contract in accordance with the competition requirements applicable to such contract. In conducting such a competition, the Secretary shall consider a timely offer from Federal Prison Industries.

    See 10 U.S.C. 2410n (emphasis added). That language does not direct or permit the Secretary—either expressly or implicitly—to bypass the purchase priorities stated in the FAR subparts setting forth those purchase priorities. Thus, the language in section 2410n permits DOD to purchase products from FPI only when the Secretary conducts a competitive procurement.

    In addition, the basis for both competitive and fair opportunity procurement procedures is the Competition in Contract Act (CICA) (10 U.S.C. 2304 or 41 U.S.C. 3304) and FAR Subpart 6. Both 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(5) and FAR Subpart 6.302-5, the implementing regulation, provide that an Agency is not required to follow CICA when expressly required by another statute to use different procurement procedures. The JWOD purchase priority, set forth at 41 U.S.C. 8504, is listed in FAR Subpart 6.302-5 as an express exception to CICA and full and open competition. While FPI is precluded by law from exercising its purchase priority for DOD procurements when it already provides greater than 5% of the market share for a particular product, competition in accordance with the Competition in Contracting Act does not apply because the JWOD purchase priority is applicable. The JWOD Act states:

    § 8504. Procurement Requirements for the Federal Government

    (a) In General.—An entity of the Federal Government intending to procure a product or service on the procurement list referred to in section 8503 of this title shall procure the product or service from a qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or a qualified nonprofit agency for other severely disabled in accordance with regulations of the Committee and at the price the Committee establishes if the product or service is available within the period required by the entity.

    (b) Exception.—This section does not apply to the procurement of a product that is available from an industry established under chapter 307 of title 18 and that is required under section 4124 of title 18 to be procured from that industry.

    Pursuant to section 8504, an exception to the JWOD priority exists for procurement of a “product that is available” from FPI. When an FPI product reaches the market share of sales specified in section 2410n the product is no longer available from FPI on a priority basis pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4124.

    Therefore, if the same product is listed on the Procurement List, then Federal agencies must purchase from the designated nonprofit agencies (assuming nonprofits are able to deliver the substantially same product in the delivery window required), and cannot elect to pursue the competitive process outlined in section 2410n while ignoring the priorities set forth in the JWOD Act 41 U.S.C. 8504, and FAR subparts 8.002, 8.603 and 8.704.

    Service Service Type: Furniture Design and Configuration Service Service Is Mandatory For: New Hampshire National Guard, Newington, NH Mandatory Source of Supply: Industries for the Blind Inc., West Allis, WI Contracting Activity: United States Property and Fiscal Office (USPFO), New Hampshire National Guard, Pease ANGB, NH Deletions

    On January 8, 2016 (81 FR 916-917), 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:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-600-8033—Dated 2015 18-month Paper Wall Planner, 24″ x 37″ 7510-01-600-8044—Dated 2015 12-Month 2-Sided Laminated Wall Planner, 24″ x 37″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FSS Household and Industrial Furniture, Arlington, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-600-7560—Monthly Wall Calendar, Dated 2015, Jan-Dec, 81/2″ x 11″ 7530-01-600-7569—Daily Desk Planner, Dated 2015, Wire bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7510-01-600-7574—Wall Calendar, Dated 2015, Wire Bound w/Hanger, 12″ x 17″ 7530-01-600-7603—Monthly Desk Planner, Dated 2015, Wire Bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7530-01-600-7613—Weekly Desk Planner, Dated 2015, Wire Bound, Non-refillable, Black Cover 7530-01-600-7628—Weekly Planner Book, Dated 2015, 5″ x 8″ 7510-01-600-7631—Wall Calendar, Dated 2015, Wire Bound w/hanger, 15.5″ x 22″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 4240-00-803-5839—Bag, Waterproof Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: W40M Northern Region Contract Office, Fort Belvoir, VA Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02940 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List Addition AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the procurement list.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 2/29/2016.

    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: Addition

    On December 18, 2015 (80 FR 79031-79032), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to furnish the service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is 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 provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service 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 service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Help Desk Support Service Service is Mandatory For: U.S. Army, Army Training Support Center, Combined Arms Center for Training, 3306 Wilson Avenue, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Alexandria, VA, Orion Career Works, Auburn, WA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC-FDO Ft Eustis, Fort Eustis, VA Additional Information

    The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is a reaction to the expiration of the U.S. Army help desk support services contract. The Federal customer contacted, and has worked with the AbilityOne Program since April 2015 to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the U.S. Army will have no viable alternative but to procure this service, this addition must be effective on February 29, 2016, ensuring timely execution for a March 1, 2016, start date while still allowing 18 days for comment. Pursuant to its own regulation 41 CFR 51-2.4, the Committee has been in contact with one of the affected parties, the incumbent of the expiring contract, since May 2015 and determined that no severe adverse impact exists. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the Federal Register on December 18, 2015, and did not receive any comments from any interested persons, including from the incumbent contractor. This addition will not create a public hardship and has limited effect on the public at large, but rather will create new jobs for other affected parties—people with severe disabilities in the AbilityOne program who otherwise face challenges locating employment and will enable Federal customer operations to continue without interruption.

    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02941 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List, Proposed Additions And Deletion AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletion from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes a product previously furnished by such agency.

    DATES:

    Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 3/13/2016.

    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.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 874—Potato Masher; MR 867—Cup, Measuring, Angled Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH 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 NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 4330-01-398-8484—Filter Element, Fluid Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Crossroads Rehabilitation Center, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Mandatory Purchase For: 100% of the requirement of the Department of Defense Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Distribution: C-List NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6650-00-NIB-0009—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Single Vision, plastic, clr 6650-00-NIB-0010—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Flat Top 28 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0011—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Flat Top 35 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0012—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Round 25 & 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0013—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Flat Top 7 x 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0014—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Flat Top 8 x 35, clr 6650-00-NIB-0015—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0016—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 SV Aspheric Lentic. 6650-00-NIB-0017—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Flat Top-Round Asph Len 6650-00-NIB-0018—Complete Eyeglass CR-39 Exec. Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0019—Complete Eyeglass Glass Single Vision, clr 6650-00-NIB-0020—Complete Eyeglass Glass Flat Top 28 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0021—Complete Eyeglass Glass Flat Top 35 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0022—Complete Eyeglass Glass Flat Top 7 x 28, trifoc, clr 6650-00-NIB-0023—Complete Eyeglass Glass Flat Top 8 x 35, trifoc, clr 6650-00-NIB-0024—Complete Eyeglass Glass Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0025—Complete Eyeglass Glass Executive Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0026—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb SV = Single Vision, clr 6650-00-NIB-0027—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb Flat Top 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0028—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb Flat Top 35, clr 6650-00-NIB-0029—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb Flat Top 7 x 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0030—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb Flat Top 8 x 35, clr 6650-00-NIB-0031—Complete Eyeglass Polycarb Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0032—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Single Vision, plastic, clr 6650-00-NIB-0033—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Flat Top 28 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0034—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Flat Top 35 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0035—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Round 25 & 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0036—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Flat Top 7 x 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0037—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Flat Top 8 x 35, clr 6650-00-NIB-0038—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0039—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 SV Aspheric Lentic. 6650-00-NIB-0040—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Flat Top/Round Asph Len 6650-00-NIB-0041—Lenses Only, 1 pair CR-39 Exec. Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0042—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Single Vision, clr 6650-00-NIB-0043—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Flat Top 28 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0044—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Flat Top 35 Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0045—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Flat Top 7 x 28, trifoc, clr 6650-00-NIB-0046—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Flat Top 8 x 35, trifoc, clr 6650-00-NIB-0047—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0048—Lenses Only, 1 pair Glass Executive Bifocal, clr 6650-00-NIB-0049—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb SV = Single Vision, clr 6650-00-NIB-0050—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb Flat Top 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0051—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb Flat Top 35 clr 6650-00-NIB-0052—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb Flat Top 7 x 28, clr 6650-00-NIB-0053—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb Flat Top 8 x 35, clr 6650-00-NIB-0054—Lenses Only, 1 pair Polycarb Progressives, clr 6650-00-NIB-0055—Photochr/Transition, CR-39 SV or MF (MF = Multi-focal) 6650-00-NIB-0056—Photochr-transition Polycarb SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0057—Photogrey Glass SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0058—Hi Index Transitions CR-39 SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0059—Anti-refl. Coating CR-39—PC SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0060—UV coating CR39 6650-00-NIB-0061—Polariz. Lens CR-39 SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0062—Slab-off CR-39 SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0063—Hi Index High Index SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0064—Prism CR-39 or PC 6650-00-NIB-0065—Diopter CR-39 + or − 9.0 6650-00-NIB-0066—Roll/polish edge CR-39, PC SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0067—Hyper3 drop SV, MF CR-39 SV or MF 6650-00-NIB-0068—Add Powers over 4.0 CR-39 MF Only 6650-00-NIB-0069—Frame Only Plastic or Metal Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC Mandatory Purchase For: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6 Medical Centers; Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs); and Health Care Centers that provide optical services Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 6 Distribution: C-List Deletion

    The following product is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-00-224-7238—Desk Blotter Pad, 191/4″ x 241/4″, Buff Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Life'sWork of Western PA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration
    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02943 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2012-0026] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information under the requirements pertaining to third party conformity assessment bodies, approved previously under OMB Control No. 3041-0156. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2012-0026, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2012-0026, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CPSC seeks to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

    Title: Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.

    OMB Number: 3041-0156.

    Type of Review: Renewal of collection.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Affected Public: Third party conformity assessment bodies seeking acceptance of accreditation or continuing accreditation.

    Estimated Burden:

    New Applications from Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.

    ○ We estimate approximately 40 new applications from independent third party conformity assessment bodies will be submitted per year, taking an estimated 75 minutes to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 50 hours per year.

    ○ We estimate approximately 3 firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will apply per year, taking an estimated 8.4 hours to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 25.2 hours per year.

    ○ We estimate approximately 4 governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will apply per year, taking an estimated 3 hours to complete the initial application materials, with an estimated burden of 12 hours per year.

    Third party conformity assessment bodies updating information.

    ○ We estimate that approximately 5 third party conformity assessment bodies will take 15 minutes to update information for only those elements of information that need updating, with an estimated burden of 1.35 hours per year.

    Third party conformity assessment bodies that subcontracts out tests.

    ○ We estimate that approximately 27 third party conformity assessment bodies will take 7 minutes to comply with the subcontracting recordkeeping requirement for an estimated 68,769 subcontract test, with an estimated of approximately 8,023 hours per year.

    Third party conformity assessment bodies that voluntarily withdraw.

    ○ We estimate approximately 8 third party conformity assessment bodies will withdraw yearly, taking an estimated 30 minutes to create and submit the required documentation, with an estimated burden of 4 hours per year.

    Third party conformity assessment bodies that are audited.

    ○ We estimate that approximately 228 independent third party conformity assessment bodies each year will be audited, taking approximately 4 minutes to resubmit their Form 223 and accreditation certificate, with an estimated burden of 15.2 hours per year.

    ○ We estimate that approximately 18 firewalled third party conformity assessment bodies will spend 226 minutes collecting and preparing the documentation to submit for an audit, with estimated burden of about 68 hours per year.

    ○ We estimate approximately 25 governmental third party conformity assessment bodies will spend 1 hour collecting and preparing the documentation to submit for an audit, with estimated burden of 25 hours per year.

    Total Annual Burden.

    Adding all of the annual estimated burden hours results in a total of 8,224 hours for third party conformity assessment bodies per year. At $38.78 per hour, the total cost of the recordkeeping associated with the Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies is approximately $318,927 (8,224 hours × $38.78 = $318,927).

    General Description of Collection: On March 12, 2013, the Commission issued a rule Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (78 FR 15836). The rule established the general requirements concerning third party conformity assessment bodies, such as the requirements and procedures for CPSC acceptance of the accreditation of a third party conformity assessment body, and prescribed adverse actions that may be imposed against CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies. The rule also amended the audit requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies and amends the Commission's regulation on inspections.

    Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    —Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility; —Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate; —Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and —Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Dated: February 9, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02939 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    CNCS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. Sec. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed renewal of the National Service Trust Voucher and Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form (OMB #3045-0014); which is used to make payments to repay qualified student loans and to pay for the cost of attending eligible post-secondary educational institutions and approved School-to-Work programs. Prior to making the payments, CNCS will review information from the forms and compare it to information taken from the AmeriCorps members' education award account(s) to ensure that the payments meet the requirements of the law. This information collection is not required to be considered for obtaining grant funding support.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, National Service Trust; Attention: Nahid Jarrett, Trust Officer, 250 E Street SW., Suite 300, Washington, DC, 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) By fax to: 202-606-3484, Attention: Nahid Jarrett.

    (4) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nahid Jarrett, 202-606-6753, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    CNCS supports programs that provide opportunities for individuals who want to become involved in national service. The service opportunities cover a wide range of activities over varying periods of time. Upon successfully completing an agreed-upon term of service in an approved AmeriCorps program, an AmeriCorps member receives an education award.

    The National Service Trust is the office within CNCS that administers the education award program. This involves tracking the service for all AmeriCorps members, ensuring that certain requirements of CNCS enabling legislation are met, and processing school and loan payments that the members authorize both manually and electronically through the MyAmeriCorps portal. With this form AmeriCorps members request Segal Education Award payments, schools and lenders certify their eligibility, and both parties certify certain legal requirements.

    Current Action

    CNCS seeks to renew the current information collection request.

    After an AmeriCorps member completes a period of national service, the individual receives an education award that can be used to pay against qualified student loans or pay for current post-secondary educational expenses. The National Service Trust Voucher and Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form is the document that a member uses to access his or her account in the National Service Trust.

    The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. CNCS also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on 03/31/2016.

    Type of Review: Renewal.

    Agency: CNCS.

    Title: National Service Trust Voucher and Payment Request Form/National Service Trust Manual Payment Request Form.

    OMB Number: 3045-0014.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Individuals using a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award, authorized school officials and qualified loan servicers.

    Total Respondents: 162,000.

    Frequency: One or more per education award.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 13,500.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Maggie Taylor-Coates, Chief of Trust Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02861 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-05] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

    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 16-05 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.005 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-05 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO)

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $333 million Other $ 83 million Total $416 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Thirteen (13) MK 15 Phalanx Block lB Baseline 2 Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) Guns

    Eight (8) CIWS Block 1 Baseline 0 to Block 1B Baseline 2 upgrade kits

    Two-hundred and sixty thousand (260,000) Rounds of 20mm MK 244 MOD 0 Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabots (APDS)

    Non -MDE includes:

    20mm dummy rounds; spares to support the installation, maintenance and operation of the MK 15 Phalanx Block l B Baseline 2 systems; classified and unclassified publications; software; training; technical assistance; installations; other technical assistance; and logistical support.

    (iv) Military Department: NAVY (LHO)

    (v) Prior related cases, if any:

    TW-P-LFF, TW-P-LDA; P&A TW-PLHO, $320.2M, 10 October 2014.

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered. or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity to Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report delivered to Congress: 16 December 2015

    *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO)—MK 15 Phalanx Block 1B Baseline 2 CIWS Guns, Upgrade Kits, Ammunition, and Support

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of:

    Thirteen (13) MK 15 Phalanx Block 1B Baseline 2 Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) Guns

    Eight (8) CIWS Block 1 Baseline 0 to Block lB Baseline 2 upgrade kits

    Two-hundred and sixty thousand (260,000) Rounds of 20mm MK 244 MOD 0 Armor Piercing Discarding Sabots (APDS)

    Also included in this possible sale are: 20mm dummy rounds; spares to support the installation, maintenance and operation of the MK 15 Phalanx Block 1B Baseline 2 systems; classified and unclassified publications; software; training; technical assistance; installations; other technical assistance; and logistical support. The estimated cost is $416 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Company in Tucson, Arizona. The purchaser has requested an offset of forty percent. At this time, agreements are undetermined and will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.

    Implementation of this proposed sale should not require the permanent assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives outside the United States.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-05 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. Purchaser currently has forty-two (42) MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) Guns of various configurations, including Block 0, Block 1 (Baselines 0, 1 and 2), Block 1A, and Block 1B Baseline 0. Purchaser will be upgrading eight (8) of its lower configurations as well as procuring thirteen (13) additional systems, all of which will have an end configuration of Block 1B Baseline 2 configuration. The main characteristics of the MK 15 Phalanx Block l B Baseline 2 CIWS Gun are:

    a. A Radar Upgrade that provides increased sensitivity on sea-skimming threats and improved low-observable performance.

    b. A stabilized thermal imager and an automatic acquisition video tracker that were introduced with the Block 1B Baseline 0 configuration. These components provide the capability to engage small, high speed, maneuvering surface craft and low, slow aircraft and helicopters. The thermal imager also improves performance against Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles by carrying out more accurate angle tracking information to the fire control computer. Purchaser has already been provided this capability with the Block 1B Baseline 0 previously procured via an FMS case.

    c. The Optimized Gun Barrel that was also introduced with the Block l B Baseline 0 and provides improved dispersion performance of the ammunition when the system is fired. This gun barrel also permits use of the MK 244 ammunition, an enhanced lethal cartridge capable of penetrating harder warheads in use today. Purchaser has already been provided this capability with the Block l B Baseline 0 previously procured via an FMS case.

    2. Although the MK 15 Phalanx Block 1B Baseline 2 CIWS Gun is considered state-of-the-art technology, there is no Critical Program Information associated with the MK 15 Phalanx CIWS hardware, technical documentation, or software. The highest classification of the hardware to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest classification of the technical documentation to be exported is CONFIDENTIAL; there is only one CONFIDENTIAL technical manual that will be exported, which is required for the operation of the MK 15 Phalanx CIWS. The highest classification of software to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED. The MK 15 Phalanx CIWS meets Anti-Tampering requirements. Only Organizational-Level and Intermediate-Level maintenance capability will be exported. The Maintenance Plan for the MK 15 CIWS limits Intermediate-Level maintenance to the system's Gun and Ammunition Handling System.

    3. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide 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 recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02905 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-06] 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 16-06 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.001 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-06 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $203,814,738 Other $ 13,033,848 Total $216,848,586

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Two-hundred and fifty (250) Block I -92F MANPAD Stinger Missiles Four (4) Block I -92F MANPAD Stinger Fly-to-Buy Missiles One (1) Captive Flight Trainer (CFT) Forty-two (42) Field Handling Trainers (FHTs) Seventy (70) Gripstock Control Groups Seventy (70) Medium Thermal Weapon Sights (MTWS) Forty-two (42) Tracking Head Trainers (THTs) Four (4) Sierra Coolant Recharging Units (CRUs) One (1) Missile Go/No Go Test Set Four (4) each MQM-170 Outlaw Target Drones Sixty-two (62) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), IFF Development One (1) Stinger Troop Proficiency Trainer (STPT)

    Non-MDE items included are Integrated Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs), Government-Furnished Equipment, spare and repair parts, Telemeters, Range and Test Support, contractor technical support, contractor training, contractor engineering services, and contractor logistics services. Also included are consolidation, Total Package Fielding, Material Fielding Team, Field Service Representative (FSR), U.S. Government Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (XX-B-ZBU)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (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: 16 December 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the United States—Block I—92F MANPAD Stinger Missiles and Related Equipment and Support

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of two-hundred and fifty (250) Block I-92F MANPAD Stinger Missiles, four (4) Block I-92F MANPAD Stinger Fly-to-Buy Missiles, one (1) Captive Flight Trainer (CFT), forty two (42) Field Handling Trainers (FHTs), seventy (70) Gripstock Control Groups, seventy (70) Medium Thermal Weapon Sights (MTWS), forty-two (42) Tracking Head Trainers (THTs), four (4) Sierra Coolant Recharging Units (CRUs), one (1) Missile Go/No Go Test Set, four (4) MQM-170 Outlaw Target Drones, sixty-two (62) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), IFF Development, one (1) Stinger Troop Proficiency Trainer (STPT). Also included are Integrated Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs),Government Furnished Equipment, spare and repair parts, Telemeters, Range and Test Support, contractor technical support, contractor training, contractor engineering services, contractor logistics services, consolidation, Total Package Fielding, Material Fielding Team, Field Service Representative (FSR), U.S. Government Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services. The estimated value is $216,848,586.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen homeland defense.

    The recipient intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces and to expand its existing air defense architecture to counter threats posed by air attack. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment 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 involved in this program is Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona. The recipient normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require visits to the recipient by twelve (12) U.S. Government or contractor representatives for a period of six (6) weeks (Non-concurrent).

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-06 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

    (viii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The highest classification of the Stinger 92F Reprogrammable Micro-Processor (RMP) Block I Missile and Stinger Man-Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) hardware is CONFIDENTIAL, and the highest classification of data and information is SECRET.

    a. The Stinger RMP Block I Missile, hardware, embedded software object code and operating documentation contain sensitive technology and are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The guidance section of the missile and tracking head trainer contain highly sensitive technology and are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Missile System hardware components contain sensitive critical technologies. Stinger Block I critical technology is primarily in the area of design and production know-how and not end-items. This sensitive critical technology is inherent in the hybrid microcircuit assemblies; micro-processors; magnetic and amorphous metals; purification; firmware; printed circuit boards; laser roll rate sensor; dual detector assembly; detector filters; optical coatings; ultraviolet sensors; compounding and handling of electronic, electro-optic, and optical materials; test equipment operating instructions; energetic materials fabrication and loading technology; warhead components and seeker assembly. Information on countermeasures vulnerability to electronic countermeasures, system performance capabilities and effectiveness, simulation and test data and software source code are classified up to SECRET.

    b. Loss of this hardware and/or data could permit development of information leading to the exploitation of countermeasures. Therefore, if a technologically capable adversary were to obtain missile hardware or associated development or production information, the missile system could be compromised through reverse engineering techniques which could defeat the weapon system's effectiveness.

    2. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02862 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-27] 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 15-27 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.000 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-27 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 25 million Other $165 million Total $190 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: The sale, refurbishment, and upgrade of two (2) Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates (FFG-7) being provided as Excess Defense Articles (EDA). Each vessel will be equipped with the MK-92 Mod 6 Fire Control System, the SSQ-89V(9) Anti-Submarine Warfare System, the MK-75 76mm Gun System, Phalanx 20mm Close-In-Weapon System (CIWS) (Block l B), MK-13 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS), AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare System, SPS-49 Radar, SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar, SQS-56 Sonar, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, provisioning, system integration, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (SEP)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (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: 16 December 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States—Refurbishment and Upgrades of EDA Oliver Perry Class Frigates (FFG-7)

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested the possible sale, refurbishment, and upgrade of two (2) Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates (FFG-7) being provided as Excess Defense Articles (EDA). Each vessel will be equipped with the MK-92 Mod 6 Fire Control System, the SQQ-89V(9) Anti-Submarine Warfare System, the MK-75 76mm Gun System, Phalanx 20mm Close-In-Weapon System (CIWS) (Block I B), MK-13 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS), AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare System, SPS-49 Radar, SQR-19 Towed Array Sonar, SQS-56 Sonar, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, provisioning, system integration, U.S. Government and contractor logistics, engineering, and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $190 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use these ships to replace existing Knox Class destroyers which have reached the end of their useful service life. The EDA Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates (FFG-7) will be more sustainable, provide increased Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability as a deterrent to local threats, require less maintenance, and reduce life cycle support costs. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing these ships and equipment 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 selected through a competitive procurement conducted by the U.S. Government in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government personnel or contractor representatives to the recipient.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-27 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The equipment to be delivered with these Oliver Perry Class Frigates (FFG-7) is similar to the equipment currently on customer ships or in inventory. This includes Close-ln- Weapon System (CIWS) (Block IB), MK 75 76mm gun, MK 13 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) for their STANDARD Missile (SM-1) and Harpoon Block II missiles. MK 32 SVTT is an over-the-side launching system for light weight torpedoes. The Link 11 system provides data sharing capability with other platforms. Operational performance characteristics for CIWS, Harpoon, and the MK 75 gun are classified SECRET. With the exception of CIWS IB and Harpoon Block II, all other equipment being provided in this program is considered legacy technology within the U.S. Navy.

    2. The SQQ-89V(9) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) system is being introduced to customer inventory through this program. This system represents an upgrade in capability for the customer, which will enhance the recipient's ASW capabilities. The operating system software and operating manuals are both classified SECRET. Operational performance is classified SECRET. The technical and operational elements of this system, and any related data, are classified SECRET. The SQQ-89V(9) will result in the transfer of highly accurate ASW sensing and detection capability.

    3. The technical and operational elements of these systems, and any related data, are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters, and similar critical information. Uncontrolled release of sensitive technological information on these systems could reveal capabilities and possible vulnerabilities.

    4. 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 advanced capabilities.

    5. A determination has been made that the recipient can provide 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.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02842 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-44] 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 15-44 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.003 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-44 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $120 million Total $120 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase: Follow-on life cycle support to maintain the Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems Low Volume Terminals (MIDS/LVT-1) and Joint Tactical Information Distribution Systems (JTIDS). The support will include spare and repair parts, support equipment, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, software and hardware updates, maintenance of a continental United States (CONUS) lab, U.S. Government and contracting engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (GOS)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case GNU-$290M-13JUL10 FMS Case GMK-$277M-10JAN03

    (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: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 16 December 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States- Follow-On Support

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of follow-on life cycle support to maintain the Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems Low Volume Terminals (MIDS/LVT-1) and Joint Tactical Information Distribution Systems (JTIDS) previously procured. The support will include spare and repair parts, support equipment, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, software and hardware updates, maintenance of a continental United States lab, U.S. Government and contracting engineering, logistics, and technical support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support. The estimated value is $120 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will enhance the recipient's operational readiness and maintenance of its existing systems. The support will improve and integrate the recipient's information flow and display of tactical aircraft, surface ships, and ground stations. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this support and equipment into its inventory.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not significantly alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor will be selected through a competitive procurement conducted by the U.S. Government in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to the recipient involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in training, program management, and technical reviews.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02847 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-74] 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 15-74 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-74 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $50.0 million Other $ 7.0 million Total $57.0 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Two-hundred and eight (208) Javelin Guided Missiles

    Also included with this request are U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, above the line transportation costs, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (ZBS)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case: YWG, Basic: $39.8M-8 Jul 02 A01: $39.98M-18 Jul 03 A02: $39.98-04 Nov 05 A03: $39.7M-15 Dec 09 YZD, Basic: $28.8M-11 Dec 09 A01: $30.1M-25 Oct 10

    (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: 16 December 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States—Javelin Missile

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of two-hundred and eight (208) Javelin Guided Missiles; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, above the line transportation costs, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $57 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The Javelin missile will provide the recipient with increased capacity to meet its coastal and homeland defense requirements. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The prime contractors will be Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin Joint Venture of Orlando, Florida and Tucson, Arizona. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the recipient.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-74 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (viii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The Javelin Weapon System is a medium-range, man-portable, shoulder-launched, fire-and-forget, anti-tank system for infantry, scouts, and combat engineers. It may also be mounted on a variety of platforms to include vehicles and watercraft. The system weighs 49.5 pounds and has a maximum range in excess of 2,500 meters. The system is highly lethal against tanks and other systems with conventional and reactive armors. The system possesses a secondary capability against bunkers.

    2. Javelin's key technical feature is the use of fire-and-forget technology which allows the gunner to fire and immediately relocate or take cover. Additional special features are the top attack and/or direct fire modes, an advanced tandem warhead and imaging infrared seeker, target lock-on before launch, and soft launch from enclosures or covered fighting positions. The Javelin missile also has a minimum smoke motor thus decreasing its detection on the battlefield.

    3. The missile is autonomously guided to the target using an imaging infrared seeker and adaptive correlation tracking algorithms.

    4. The Javelin Missile System hardware and the documentation are UNCLASSIFIED. The missile software which resides in the Command Launch Unit (CLU) is considered sensitive. The sensitivity is primarily in the software programs which instruct the system how to operate in the presence of countermeasures. The overall hardware is also considered sensitive in that the infrared wavelengths could be useful in attempted countermeasure development. The benefits to be derived from the sale, as outlined in the policy justification of the notification, outweigh the potential damage that could result if sensitive technology was revealed to unauthorized persons.

    5. 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. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02865 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-01] 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 16-01 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.004 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-01 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural and Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $237 million Other $ 31 million Total $268 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Seven hundred sixty-nine (769) TOW 2B Aero, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71F-Series) Fourteen (14) TOW 2B Aero, Radio Frequency (RF) (BGM-71F-Series) Fly-to-Buy Missiles Forty-six (46) Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) Four (4) ITAS spares

    Also included are the following non-MDE: Missile Support Equipment, Government-Furnished Equipment, Technical Manuals/Publications, Spare Parts, Tool and Test Equipment, Training, U.S. Government Technical Support/Logistical Support, Contractor Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: U.S. Army (TW-B-ZBT)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (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: 16 December 2015

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representatives Office in the United States - TOW 2B Aero Radio Frequency (RF) Missile (BGM-71F-Series), Support and Training

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of seven hundred sixty-nine (769) TOW 2B Aero Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71F-Series). This proposed sale also includes fourteen (14) Radio Frequency (RF) TOW 2B Aero (BGM-71F-Series) Fly-to-Buy Missiles for lot acceptance testing, forty-six (46) Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) Launchers, four (4) Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) Launcher spares, Missile support Equipment, Government-Furnished Equipment, Technical Manuals/Publications, Spare Parts, Tool and Test Equipment, Trainers, U.S. Government Technical Support/Integrated Logistical Support, Contractor Technical Support, and other associated equipment and services. The estimated cost is $268 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enchance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military, balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale of TOW 2B Missiles, ITAS Launchers, and technical support will advance the recipient's efforts to develop and integrated ground defense capability. A strong national defense and dedicated military force will assist the recipient in its efforts to maintain stability. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment 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 involved in this program is Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS) of Tucson, Arizona, and McKinney, Texas. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time 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 the recipient for multiple period of equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout, and new equipment training. There will be no more than ten contractor personnel at any one time and all efforts will take less than 16 weeks in total.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-01 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Anns Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The TOW 2B Aero Radio Frequency (RF) Missile (BGM-71F-3-RF) is a fly-over-shootdown missile designed to defeat armored vehicles. TOW missiles are fired from a variety of TOW Launchers in the U .S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customer forces. The TOW 2B Aero RF missile can be launched from the same launcher platforms as the existing wire-guided TOW 2B and TOW 2B Aero missiles without modification to the launcher. The TOW 2B missile (both wire & RF) contains two tracker beacons (xenon and thermal) for the launcher to track and guide the missile in flight. Guidance commands from the launcher are provided to the missile by an RF link contained within the missile case. Software for performance data, lethality penetration, and sensors are classified SECRET.

    2. The Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) is designed to fire all existing versions of the TOW missile and consists of a Target Acquisition Subsystem (TAS), a Fire Control Subsystem (FCS), a Li-Ion Battery Box (LBB), a modified Traversing Unit (TU) plus the standard launch tube and tripod. The ITAS provides for the integration of both the direct view optics and a second generation Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly (SADA) II thermal sensor into a single housing; direct view optics that provide viewing the target scene in daylight and non-obscured conditions; introduction of both passive and active eye safe laser-ranging; development of embedded training and training sustainment; automatic bore sight which allows the gunner to align the night vision system with the direct view optics; insertion of advanced Built-In Test/Built-In Test Equipment (BIT/BITE) which provides fault detection and recognition and go/no go status for the gunner; and an Aided Target Tracker (ATT) that provides the capability to process infrared imagery into recognizable contour features used to assist the gunner's aim point.

    3. 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. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02891 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-72] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, DoD.

    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 15-72 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.007 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-72 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:

    Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO)

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $300.0 million Other $ 75.0 million Total $375.0 million * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Thirty-Six (36) Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs)

    Weapons

    • Thirty (30) .50 Caliber M2 machine guns

    • Six (6) 7.62mm M240 machine guns

    Non-MDE included with this request are: Enhanced Armored Applique Kits (EAAK); spares; training; support and test equipment; publications; contractor engineering technical services; engineering technical services; logistical, training, engineering and program support; and other technical assistance.

    (iv) Military Department: NAVY (SEQ)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: FMS Case SDR-$173 million-04 SEP 02

    (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: 16 December 2015

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO)—Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs)

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of the following:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Thirty-Six (36) Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs)

    Weapons

    • Thirty (30) .50 Caliber M2 machine guns

    • Six (6) 7.62mm M240 machine guns

    Non-MDE included with this request are: Enhanced Armored Applique Kits (EAAK); spares; weapons; training; support and test equipment; publications; contractor engineering technical services; engineering technical services; logistical, training, engineering and program support; and other technical assistance. The estimated MDE cost is $300 million. The total estimated cost is $375 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. The recipient will use these vehicles to augment existing vehicles and will have no difficulty absorbing these new vehicles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not significantly alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor supporting the refurbishment has not been selected. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale should not require the permanent assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to the recipient.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-72 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. The Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) Al Reliability Availability Maintainability (RAM) Rebuild to Standard (RS) Family of Vehicles (FOV) end items, trainers, and components are UNCLASSIFIED. The technical and operational elements of these systems, and any related data, are classified up to SECRET to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters, and similar critical information.

    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 advanced capabilities.

    3. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02938 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 15-45] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    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 15-45 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD <E T="03">Federal Register</E> Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN12FE16.006 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 15-45 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: Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $10 million Other $65 million Total $75 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE) includes:

    Four (4) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems (MIDS) On Ship Low Volume Terminals (LVTs)

    Four (4) Command and Control Processor (C2P) units

    Non-MDE items included are the installation and integration of Taiwan Advanced Tactical Data Link System (TATDLS) beyond line-of-sight datalink capability on six (6) Perry Class Frigates (PFG-2) and four (4) Lafayette Class (PFG-3) ships, up to ten (10) High Frequency Radios, and ten (10) Data Terminal Sets (DTSs). Also included are spare and repair parts; support equipment; communications equipment; maintenance support; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (GOX)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any:

    FMS Case GNU-$290M-13JUL10 FMS Case GMK-$277M-10JAN03

    (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: 16 December 2015

    *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States-Taiwan Advanced Tactical Data Link System (TATDLS) and Link-11 Integration

    The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States has requested a possible sale of four (4) Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems (MIDS) On Ship Low Volume Terminals (LVTs), and four (4) Command and Control Processor (C2P) units. Also included will be the installation and integration of Taiwan Advanced Tactical Data Link System (TATDLS) beyond line-of-sight datalink capability on six (6) Perry Class (PFG-2) and four (4) Lafayette Class (PFG-3) ships, up to ten (10) High Frequency Radios, ten (10) Data Terminal Sets (DTSs), spare and repair parts, support equipment, communications equipment, maintenance support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated value is $75 million.

    This sale is consistent with United States law and policy as expressed in Public Law 96-8.

    This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability. The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region.

    The proposed sale will improve the recipient's capability in current and future defensive efforts. Under this case the recipient will update the existing Perry Class (PFG-2) (six ships) and Lafayette Class (PFG-3) (four ships) ships to match the configuration of ships updated under the Po Sheng and Syun An programs. Configuring the remaining ships to include TATDLS beyond line-of-sight datalink capability will allow data sharing capability with other platforms and improve the recipient's operational readiness for the systems provided under the previous Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases. The recipient will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not significantly alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractor is unknown at this time and will be determined during contract negotiations. The purchaser normally requests industrial cooperation at forty percent, but at this time there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    It is estimated that during implementation of this proposed sale a number of U.S. Government and contractor representatives will be assigned to the recipient or travel there intermittently during the program.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 15-45 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The equipment to be delivered under this case has been provided previously under Po Sheng TW-P-GMK and Syun An TW-P-GNU and is currently used by the customer. The efforts under this case will lead to the remaining Perry Class (PFG-2) (six ships) and Lafayette Class (PFG-3) (four ships) ships having the same configuration as ships previously integrated under Po Sheng, TW-P-GMK and Syun An, TW-P-GNU cases. The ships will have Taiwan Advanced Tactical Data Link System (TATDLS) beyond line-of-sight datalink capability, which provides data sharing capability with other platforms. The equipment being provided under this case is considered legacy technology within the U.S. Navy.

    2. The Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) On Ship Low Volume Terminal (LVT) hardware, publications, performance specifications, operational capability, parameters, vulnerabilities to countermeasures, and software documentation are classified CONFIDENTIAL. The classified information to be provided is necessary for the operation, maintenance, and repair (through intermediate level) of the data link terminal, installed systems, and related software. The recipient has previously received terminals under TW-P-GNU. Commercial Signal Message Processors (CSMPs) will be integrated into terminals provided. The operating system has CONFIDENTIAL software and operating elements; operating manuals are UNCLASSIFIED.

    3. The Command and Control Processor (C2P) provided will be Model 4 or equivalent, which is considered legacy technology within the U.S. Navy. The operating system has CONFIDENTIAL software and operating elements; operating manuals are CONFIDENTIAL.

    4. The technical and operational elements of these systems, and any related data, are classified to protect vulnerabilities, design and performance parameters, and similar critical information. Uncontrolled release of sensitive technological information on these systems could reveal capabilities and possible vulnerabilities, which could be detrimental to the U.S. Navy.

    5. 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 advanced capabilities.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the recipient.

    [FR Doc. 2016-02918 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) AGENCY:

    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Open Live Board Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a Board meeting of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    March 9th, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; March 10th, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, 2800 South Potomac Ave., Arlington, Virginia 22202 USA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Li, Policy Advisor, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number 202-287-5189, and email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

    Tentative Agenda: Meet with and hear from the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the two Deputy Assistant Secretary's for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, meet with the QER Team within the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (EPSA), engage with the Office of Technology Transitions, discuss updates and provide recommendations on the Weatherization Assistance Program, and update members of the Board on routine business matters.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Monica Neukomm at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days on the STEAB Web site, http://www.energy.gov/eere/steab/state-energy-advisory-board.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on February 5, 2016. LaTanya Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02796 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Electricity Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces an open meeting of the Electricity Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

     Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. EST.

    Friday, March 18, 2016 8:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone: (202) 586-1060 or Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Committee: The Electricity Advisory Committee (EAC) was re-established in July 2010, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2, to provide advice to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, executing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and modernizing the nation's electricity delivery infrastructure. The EAC is composed of individuals of diverse background selected for their technical expertise and experience, established records of distinguished professional service, and their knowledge of issues that pertain to electricity.

    Tentative Agenda: The meeting of the EAC is expected to include an update on the programs and initiatives of the DOE's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Quadrennial Energy Reviews. The meeting is also expected to include a presentation from FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur and panel discussions on valuation and integration of distributed energy resources (DERs) and on interactions between public policy and wholesale market design. Additionally, the meeting is expected to include a discussion of the plans and activities of the Grid Modernization Initiative Working Group, the Clean Power Plan Working Group, the Smart Grid Subcommittee, the Power Delivery Subcommittee, and the Energy Storage Subcommittee.

    Tentative Agenda: March 17, 2016   12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. EAC Leadership Committee Meeting 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. Registration 1:00 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Welcome, Introductions, Developments since the September 2015 Meeting 1:15 p.m.-1:30 p.m.  Update on the DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability's Programs and Initiatives 1:30 p.m.-1:55 p.m. Update on the Quadrennial Energy Reviews 1:55 p.m.-2:20 p.m. Update on the DOE Grid Modernization Initiative 2:20 p.m.-2:30 p.m. EAC Member Discussion of the Grid Modernization Initiative Working Group Plans 2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Panel: Valuation and Integration of DERs 4:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Break 4:15 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Presentation from FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur 5:00 p.m.-5:55 p.m. EAC Smart Grid Subcommittee Activities and Plans 5:55 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn Day One of March 2016 Meeting of the EAC Tentative Agenda: March 18, 2016 8:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.-EAC Storage Subcommittee Activities and Plans 9:00 a.m.-9:50 a.m.-EAC Power Delivery Subcommittee Activities and Plans 9:50 a.m.-10:00 a.m.-Break 10:00 a.m.-11:40 a.m.-Panel: Interactions Between Public Policy and Wholesale Market Design 11:40 a.m.-12:00 p.m. EAC Member Discussion of Clean Power Plan Working Group Activities and Plans 12:00 p.m.-12:10 p.m. Public Comments 12:10 p.m.-12:30 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn March 2016 Meeting of the EAC

    The meeting agenda may change to accommodate EAC business. For EAC agenda updates, see the EAC Web site at: http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac.

    Public Participation: The EAC welcomes the attendance of the public at its meetings. Individuals who wish to offer public comments at the EAC meeting may do so on Friday, March 18, 2016, but must register at the registration table in advance. Approximately 10 minutes will be reserved for public comments. Time allotted per speaker will depend on the number who wish to speak but is not expected to exceed three minutes. Anyone who is not able to attend the meeting, or for whom the allotted public comments time is insufficient to address pertinent issues with the EAC, is invited to send a written statement to Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum.

    You may submit comments, identified by “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting,” by any of the following methods:

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Matthew Rosenbaum, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8G-017, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    Email: [email protected] Include “Electricity Advisory Committee Open Meeting” in the subject line of the message.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and identifier. All comments received will be posted without change to http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket, to read background documents or comments received, go to http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac.

    The following electronic file formats are acceptable: Microsoft Word (.doc), Corel Word Perfect (.wpd), Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Rich Text Format (.rtf), plain text (.txt), Microsoft Excel (.xls), and Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt). If you submit information that you believe to be exempt by law from public disclosure, you must submit one complete copy, as well as one copy from which the information claimed to be exempt by law from public disclosure has been deleted. You must also explain the reasons why you believe the deleted information is exempt from disclosure.

    DOE is responsible for the final determination concerning disclosure or nondisclosure of the information and for treating it in accordance with the DOE's Freedom of Information regulations (10 CFR 1004.11).

    Note: Delivery of the U.S. Postal Service mail to DOE may be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. DOE, therefore, encourages those wishing to comment to submit comments electronically by email. If comments are submitted by regular mail, the Department requests that they be accompanied by a CD or diskette containing electronic files of the submission.

    Minutes: The minutes of the EAC meeting will be posted on the EAC Web page at http://energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-advisory-committee-eac. They can also be obtained by contacting Mr. Matthew Rosenbaum at the address above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02793 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    30-Day Notice of Submission of Information Collection Approval from the Office of Management and Budget and Request for Comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, EIA has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery'” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted by March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to:

    DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. and to Jacob Bournazian, Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, or by fax at 202-586-0552, or by email at [email protected]
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Jacob Bournazian, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, phone: 202-586-5562, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.

    Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to collect qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery.

    Qualitative feedback means data that provide useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations. This feedback also provides an early warning of issues with service, or focuses attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve the accuracy of data reported on survey instruments or the delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.

    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.

    The 60-day notice was published in the Federal Register of December 4, 2015; it can be reviewed at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-12-04/pdf/2015-30657.pdf. EIA proposes to reduce the burden hour estimate shown in the 60-day notice from 25,000 hours to 15,000 hours to reflect current program needs. Below we provide EIA's projected average estimates for the next three years:

    Current Actions: New collection of information.

    Type of Review: New Collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Businesses and Organizations, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 150.

    Respondents: 100.

    Annual Responses: 15,000.

    Frequency of Response: Once per request.

    Average Minutes per Response: 60.

    Burden Hours: 15,000.

    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 Office of Management and Budget control number.

    Statutory Authority:

    Executive Order (EO) 13571, Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 5, 2016. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02800 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2777-123] Idaho Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and 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. Application Type: Amendment to Land Management Plan.

    b. Project No: 2777-123.

    c. Date Filed: December 29, 2015.

    d. Applicant: Idaho Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: Upper Salmon Falls Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Snake River in Gooding and Twin Falls counties, Idaho.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: L. Lewis Wardle, Senior Biologist—Licensing Program; [email protected]; (208) 388-2964.

    i. FERC Contact: Krista Sakallaris, (202) 502-6302, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: March 8, 2015.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations 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-2777-123.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor 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.

    k. Description of Request: Idaho Power Company (IPC) filed a five-year compliance report for the project's approved land management plan as well as proposed updates to the existing plan. Updates include new land-use classification maps based off previously approved changes and modifications to the use classification of private boat docks on conservation and agriculture/grazing land. IPC proposes to change the classification of private boat docks to “conditional” in both conservation and agriculture/grazing land-use areas, which are currently listed as allowed and prohibited, respectively. To remain consistent across projects, IPC proposes the modification due to changes in land ownership and land use patterns from open-range grazing to private/rural-residential uses in the project area, as well as at this and several other IPC projects. IPC states that by listing private boat docks as conditional it would review all applications to ensure the proposal does not have adverse resource effects. Additionally, all dock applications would be required to meet the IPC's existing boat dock standards and applicants would be required to obtain the required state and federal permits and consult with specified resource agencies.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 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. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    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, respectively. 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 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 commenting, 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. Any filing made by an intervenor 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 385.2010.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02926 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-52-000.

    Applicants: South Plains Wind Energy II, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of South Plains Wind Energy II, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160208-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-68-000.

    Applicants: Smith Creek Hydro, LLC.

    Description: Application of Smith Creek Hydro, LLC for Authorization for Merger and Consolidation of Jurisdictional Facilities, Acquisition of an Existing Generation Facility and Request for Expedited Action.

    Filed Date: 2/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20160205-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-208-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC Midwest LLC, International Transmission Company, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-02-08_ITC, ITCM, METC Att O Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160208-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-903-000.

    Applicants: Ohio Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits 47th Revised Service Agreement No. 1336 to be effective 1/8/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20160205-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-904-000.

    Applicants: Smith Creek Hydro, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate Authority to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20160205-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-905-000.

    Applicants: Biofuels Washington, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Market Based Rate Tariff Cancellation of BioFuels Washington, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/5/16.

    Accession Number: 20160205-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-906-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI submits Amended Interconnection Agreement Nos. 3992, 3993, and 3994 to be effective 4/8/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160208-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-907-000.

    Applicants: City Water, Light & Power-City of Springfield, IL.

    Description: Annual Informational Attachment O filing of City Water, Light & Power-City of Springfield, IL.

    Filed Date: 2/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160208-5073.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-908-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 775—Montana DOT Utilities Agreement—Emerson Jct-Manchester to be effective 4/9/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160208-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    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 8, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02922 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-38-000] Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. v. ISO New England, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on February 5, 2016, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act 1 and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2015), Dominion Energy Marketing, Inc. and Dominion Energy Manchester Street, Inc. (DEMS) (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against ISO New England, Inc. (Respondent) alleging that Respondent violated its Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff in preventing new incremental capacity at DEMS' Manchester Street Station from participating in Respondent's upcoming Forward Capacity Auction on February 8, 2016 for the 2019-2020 Capacity Commitment Period, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e (2012).

    Dominion certifies that copies of the complaint were served on contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of answers, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOn[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 25, 2016.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02924 Filed 2-11-16; 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: RP16-544-000.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing Order No. 587-W Compliance to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160201-5441.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-583-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 20160203 Negotiated Rate to be effective 2/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-584-000.

    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing 20160203_WGI 587-W NAESB Standards to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5170.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-585-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to Amend LER 5680's Attachment A_02_03_16 to be effective 2/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-586-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate Service Agmts—Pauley to be effective 2/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    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: RP15-65-005.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Settlement Compliance Tariff Records to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 1/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160129-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1331-001.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Update to Non-conforming Agreements for the OPEN Project.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-576-001.

    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB 3.0 Correction Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5237.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-579-001.

    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.

    Description: Compliance filing NAESB 3.0 Correction to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 2/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160203-5240.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/16/16.

    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 4, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02923 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 1388-077] Southern California Edison Company; 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: Application for Temporary Variance of Minimum Pool Requirement.

    b. Project No.: 1388-077.

    c. Date Filed: January 27, 2016.

    d. Applicant: Southern California Edison Company (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Lee Vining.

    f. Location: Lee Vining Creek in Mono County, California.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Matthew Woodhall, Southern California Edison Company, 1515 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770, (626) 302-9596, [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Mr. John Aedo, (415) 369-3335, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is March 9, 2016. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations 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. Please include the project number (P-1388-077) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission approval for a variance of the minimum pool requirement at Tioga Lake, which requires that the licensee maintain the lake level within two feet of the spillway or, in dry years, at its peak for the year from May 1 through September 30. In order to facilitate maintenance work on the grizzly and outlet works, the licensee requests Commission approval to begin draining the lake starting August 1, 2016, instead of the October 1 commencement date. The associated maintenance work would occur from September 6 to October 31, 2016, during which, the licensee would maintain natural flow through the outlet works.

    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 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 license surrender. 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 8, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02925 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0027; FRL-9942-40-OAR] Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Request (ICR) for On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program; EPA ICR Number 2535.01, OMB Control Number-2060-NEW AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) for on-highway motorcycle emissions certification and compliance” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. The current ICR, under which on-highway motorcycles are included, is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2016. 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OAR-2016-0027, to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julian Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4029; fax number: (734) 214-4869; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2016-0027, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov./edocket.

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are on-highway motorcycle manufacturers and importers.

    Title: Information Collection Request (ICR) for On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program.

    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.) manufacturers and importers of on-highway motorcycles must have a certificate of conformity issued by EPA covering any vehicle they intend to offer for sale in the United States. A certificate of conformity represents that the respective vehicle conforms to all applicable emissions requirements. In issuing a certificate of conformity, EPA reviews vehicle information and emissions test data to determine if the required testing has been performed and the required emissions levels have been demonstrated. After a certificate of conformity has been issued, the Agency may request additional information to verify that the product continues to meet its certified emissions standards throughout its useful life. 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 OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (iv) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.

    The current ICR for on-highway motorcycle emissions certification and compliance information is set to expire on September 30, 2016. This program was previously included under the current ICR for light-duty vehicle emissions certification and in-use testing [EPA ICR No. 0783.62, OMB Control No. 2060-0104].

    Burden Statement: EPA estimates that 74 respondents will submit information each year spending a total of 542,118 hours and incurring an annualized cost of 10.9 million dollars. The average burden per respondent varies greatly; it is a function of the diversity of the products produced or imported. (A large, diversified motor vehicle manufacturer will have a much greater burden than a small importer of a few identical vehicles.) Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are on-highway motorcycles manufacturers and importers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 74.

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly and annually.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,594.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $386,088, which includes $151,150 annualized operation and maintenance costs, $113,834 annualized capital/startup costs, and $168,614 annual labor costs. These estimates reflect an update to the previous cost estimates for on-highway motorcycles previously culled and compiled for the current ICR for light-duty vehicle emissions certification and in-use testing.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Byron J. Bunker, Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02956 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0997; FRL-9939-93-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Recordkeeping and Reporting Related to RFS2 Voluntary RIN Quality Assurance Program” (EPA ICR No. 2473.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0688) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is currently approved through 12/31/2017. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 30455) on May 28, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-1121, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geanetta Heard, Fuel Compliance Center, 64106J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9017; fax number: 202-565-2085; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program began in 2006 pursuant to the requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o) which were added through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The statutory requirements for the RFS program were subsequently modified through the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007 (EISA), resulting in the promulgation of major revisions to the regulatory requirements on March 26, 2010. The RFS program requires that specified volumes of renewable fuel be used as transportation fuel, heating oil, and/or jet fuel each year. To accomplish this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes applicable percentage standards annually that apply to the sum of all gasoline and diesel produced or imported. Obligated parties demonstrate compliance with the standards through the acquisition of unique Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) assigned by the producer or importer to every batch of renewable fuel produced or imported. This regulation will help EPA to monitor compliance with the RFS program and will ensure that the RIN system operates as originally intended. The data generated by the Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) program will assist obligated parties and smaller renewable fuel producers to comply with the requirements of the RFS program by supporting the validity of RINs.

    Form Numbers: EPA Forms 5900-354, 5900-355, 5900-356, 5900-323, 5900-357, 5900-358, 5900-359, 5900-360, and 5900-361.

    Respondents/affected entities:

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary (40 CFR part 80).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,222 (total).

    Frequency of response: Quarterly, yearly and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 26,830 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,984,207 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 236,914 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This is due to a reduction in burden hours due to EMTS system's automation structure.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02921 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9025-5] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), Filed 02/01/2016 Through 02/05/2016, 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. 20160028, Final, FHWA, WI, I-94 East-West Corridor (70th St—16th St) Project, Review Period Ends: 03/14/2016, Contact: Michael Davies, 608-829-7500. EIS No. 20160029, Final, BPA, WA, I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project, Review Period Ends: 03/14/2016, Contact: Nancy A. Wittpenn 503-230-3297. Amended Notices EIS No. 20150346, Draft, OSM, TN, North Cumberland Wildlife Management Area, Tennessee, Lands Unsuitable for Mining, Comment Period Ends: 02/26/2016, Contact: Earl Bandy 865-545-4103 ext. 130, Revision to FR Notice Published 12/11/2015; OSM reopened the comment period that ended 01/025/2016 and extended to 02/26/2016. Dated: February 9, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02937 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0407; FRL-9941-79-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors (Revision) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors” (EPA ICR No. 1772.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0347) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 43770) on July 23, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0407, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Klein, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Mail Code: 6202A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9144; fax number: 202-343-2204; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: EPA created ENERGY STAR as a voluntary program to help businesses and individuals protect the environment through superior energy efficiency. The program focuses on reducing utility-generated emissions by reducing the demand for energy. In 1991, EPA launched the Green Lights Program to encourage corporations, state and local governments, colleges and universities, and other organizations to adopt energy-efficient lighting as a profitable means of preventing pollution and improving lighting quality. Since then, EPA has rolled Green Lights into ENERGY STAR and expanded ENERGY STAR to encompass organization-wide energy performance improvement, such as building technology upgrades, product purchasing initiatives, and employee training. At the same time, EPA has streamlined the reporting requirements of ENERGY STAR and focused on providing incentives for improvements (e.g., ENERGY STAR Awards Program).

    To join ENERGY STAR, organizations are asked to complete a Partnership Letter or Agreement that establishes their commitment to energy efficiency. Partners agree to undertake efforts such as measuring, tracking, and benchmarking their organization's energy performance by using tools such as those offered by ENERGY STAR; developing and implementing a plan to improve energy performance in their facilities and operations by adopting a strategy provided by ENERGY STAR; and educating staff and the public about their Partnership with ENERGY STAR, and highlighting achievements with the ENERGY STAR, where available. In addition, Partners and any other interested party can evaluate the efficiency of their buildings using EPA's online tools (e.g., Portfolio Manager) and apply for recognition.

    Form numbers: 5900-19, 5900-21, 5900-22, 5900-33, 5900-89, 5900-195, 5900-197, 5900-198, 5900-262, 5900-263, 5900-264, 5900-265, 5900-375, 5900-376, 5900-377, 5900-378, 5900-379, 5900-380, 5900-381, 5900-382, 5900-383, 5900-384, 5900-385, 5900-386, and 5900-387.

    Respondents/affected entities: Entities affected by this action are participants in EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of respondents: 51,515 (total).

    Frequency of response: One-time, annually, or on occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 254,084 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)

    Total estimated cost: $21,784,161 (per year), includes $10,827,727 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 59,575 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to program growth.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02919 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0078; FRL-9940-65-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Proposed Information Collection Request; Landfill Methane Outreach Program (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Landfill Methane Outreach Program” (EPA ICR No. 1849.07 OMB Control No. 2060-0446) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 61210) on Friday, October 9, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0078, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Swarupa Ganguli, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 6207A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9732; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), created by EPA as part of the United States' commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is a voluntary program designed to encourage and facilitate the development of environmentally and economically sound landfill gas (LFG) energy projects across the United States to reduce methane emissions from landfills. LMOP meets these objectives by educating local governments and communities about the benefits of LFG recovery and use; building partnerships between state agencies, industry, energy service providers, local communities, and other stakeholders interested in developing this valuable resources in their community; and providing tools to evaluate LFG energy potential. LMOP signed voluntary Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with these organizations to enlist their support in promoting cost-effective LFG utilization. The information collection includes completion and submission of the MOU, periodic information updates, and annual completion and submission of basic information on landfill methane projects with which the organizations are involved as an effort to update the LMOP Landfill and Landfill Gas Energy Project Database. The information collection is to be utilized to maintain up-to-date data and information about LMOP Partners and LFG energy projects with which they are involved. The data will also be used by the public to access LFG energy project development opportunities in the United States. In addition, the information collection will assist LMOP in evaluating the reduction of methane emissions from landfills.

    Form Numbers: 5900-157, 5900-158, 5900-159, 5900-160, 5900-161, and 5900-162.

    Respondents/affected entities: Private companies and municipalities that own or operate landfills; manufacturers and suppliers of equipment/knowledge to capture and utilize LFG; utility companies; end-users of energy from landfills; developers of LFG energy projects; State agencies; and other LFG energy stakeholders.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,135.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Total estimated burden: 2,522 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $196,272 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,694 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease is due to revised estimates of respondent participation and attrition.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02920 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0743] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 12, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0743.

    Title: Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-128.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and state, local and tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,471 respondents; 10,071 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 11.730414 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and monthly reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 118,137 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe is confidential, they may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: In CC Docket No. 96-128, the Commission promulgated rules and requirements implementing Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Among other things, the rules (1) Establish fair compensation for every completed intrastate and interstate payphone call; (2) discontinue intrastate and interstate access charge payphone service elements and payments, and intrastate and interstate payphone subsidies from basic exchange services; and (3) adopt guidelines for use by the states in establishing public interest payphones to be located where there would otherwise not be a payphone. The information collected under LEC Provision of Emergency Numbers to Carrier-Payers would able used to ensure that interexchange carriers, payphone service providers (“PSP”) LECs, and the states, comply with their obligations under the 1996 Act.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Office of the Secretary.

    Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02902 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1050] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before April 12, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1050.

    Title: Section 97.303, Frequency Sharing Requirements.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 5,000 respondents; 5,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes (.33 hours).

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 302(a) and 303(c), and (f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,650 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission established a recordkeeping procedure in section 97.303(s) that required that amateur operator licensees using other antennas must maintain in their station records either manufacturer data on the antenna gain or calculations of the antenna gain.

    The amateur radio service governed by 47 CFR part 97 of the Commission's rules, provides spectrum for amateur radio service licensees to participate in a voluntary noncommercial communication service which provides emergency communications and allows experimentation with various radio techniques and technologies to further the understanding of radio use and the development of technologies.

    The information collection is used to calculate the effective radiated power (ERP) that the station is transmitting to ensure that ERP does not exceed 100 W PEP.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02901 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 16-53] Order Declares ACT Telecommunications, Inc.'s International Section 214 Authorization Terminated AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission declares the international section 214 authorization granted to ACT Telecommunications, Inc. (ACT) terminated given ACT's inability to comply with the express condition for holding the authorization. We also conclude that ACT failed to comply with those requirements of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's rules that ensure that the Commission can contact and communicate with the authorization holder, which failures have prevented any way of addressing ACT's inability to comply with the condition of its authorization.

    DATES:

    January 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cara Grayer, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, at (202) 418-2960 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 16-53, adopted and released January 14, 2016. On October 27, 2009, the International Bureau granted ACT an international section 214 authorization to provide global or limited global facility-based service and global or limited global resale service in accordance with section 63.18(e)(1) and 63.18(e)(2) of the Commission's rules. The International Bureau granted the application on the express condition that ACT abide by the commitments and undertakings contained in its Letter of Assurance (LOA) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, and with DOJ, the Executive Branch Agencies) dated October 20, 2009. On May 9, 2014, the Executive Branch Agencies notified the Commission of ACT's non-compliance with the conditions of its authorization and requested that the Commission terminate, and declare null and void and no longer in effect, the international section 214 authorization issued to ACT. We determine that ACT's international section 214 authorization to provide international services issued under File No. ITC-214-20081201-00519 has terminated for ACT's inability to comply with the LOA, an express condition for holding the section 214 international authorization. The International Bureau has provided ACT with notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations in the May 9, 2014 Executive Branch Letter concerning ACT's non-compliance with the condition of the grant. ACT has not responded to any of our multiple requests or requests from the Executive Branch Agencies. We find that ACT's failure to respond to our multiple requests demonstrates that it is unable to satisfy the LOA conditions concerning its 2012 and 2013 certifications, maintaining a current designated point of contact (POC), and providing timely notice of a change in ACT's POC status, upon which the Executive Branch Agencies gave their non-objection to the grant of the authorization to ACT, and which is a condition of the grant of its section 214 authorization.

    Furthermore, after having received an international 214 authorization, a carrier “is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the certifications made in its application” and must promptly correct information no longer accurate, “and, in any event, within thirty (30) days.” ACT has failed to inform the Commission of any changes in its business status of providing international telecommunications services, as required by the rules. Nor is there any record of ACT having complied with section 413 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules requiring it to designate an agent for service after receiving its authorization on October 27, 2009. Finally, as part of its authorization, ACT “must file annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue as required by section 43.62.” Section 43.62(b) states that “[n]ot later than July 31 of each year, each person or entity that holds an authorization pursuant to section 214 to provide international telecommunications service shall report whether it provided international telecommunications services during the preceding calendar year.” Our records indicate that ACT failed to file an annual international telecommunications traffic and revenue report indicating whether or not ACT provided services in 2014, as required by section 43.62(b) of the Commission's rules. In these circumstances, and in light of ACT's failure to respond to the Commission's rules designed to ensure its ability to communicate with the holder of the authorization also warrants termination wholly apart from demonstrating ACT's inability to satisfy the LOA conditions of its authorization.

    By this Order, we grant the Executive Branch agencies' request to the extent set forth in this Order. A copy of this Order will be sent by return receipt requested to ACT at its last known addresses.

    Further requests should be sent to Cara Grayer, Attorney, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau via email at [email protected] and file it under File No. ITC-214-20081201-00519 via IBFS at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/pleading.do.

    Federal Communications Commission. Troy F. Tanner, Deputy Chief, International Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02932 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [AU Docket No. 14-252; DA 16-115] Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Releases Updated List of Reserve-Eligible Nationwide Service Providers in Each PEA for the Broadcast Incentive Auction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) updated a list of nationwide providers qualified to bid on reserved spectrum in Auction 1002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kate Matraves, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-391-6272, email [email protected] or Karen Sprung, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-2762, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Bureau's Public Notice, DA No. 16-115, AU Docket No. 14-252, released February 2, 2016. The full text of this document, including the associated attachment, is available for inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    The Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice included a list of nationwide providers in each Partial Economic Area (“PEA”) qualified to bid on reserved spectrum in the forward auction (Auction 1002). The Commission stated in the Auction 1000 Application Procedures Public Notice that an updated list of nationwide providers qualified to bid on reserved spectrum in Auction 1002 would be issued prior to the FCC Form 175 filing deadline. Parties interested in filing potential corrections were given until November 16, 2015 to do so, and two parties filed.

    The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is releasing the updated list as Attachment 1 to this Public Notice. These updates reflect recently approved transactions and certain corrections requested by Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile,1 but do not reflect another correction 2 or certain changes in methodology requested by T-Mobile.3 PEAs that have been updated are marked in Attachment 1 with an asterisk.

    1 Verizon and T-Mobile each filed corrections to PEAs 69 (Springfield, MA) and 282 (Galesburg, IL) indicating that Verizon is not reserve-eligible in those markets. The Commission agrees and accordingly, these corrections are reflected in Attachment 1.

    2 T-Mobile claims that Verizon should not be reserve-eligible in PEA 410 (Valentine, NE) based on arguments that Commission staff may not have attributed Alltel of Nebraska to Verizon, and T-Mobile's own calculations of the population covered by Verizon's cellular licenses in Valentine. The Commission notes first that the Commission did attribute Alltel of Nebraska to Verizon in our calculations. Secondly, in our review of the data submitted by T-Mobile, the Commission finds no basis for the inclusion of three additional census blocks in T-Mobile's calculations of the population covered. The Commission finds that Verizon is reserve-eligible in Valentine.

    3 T-Mobile disagrees with our previously articulated methodology for determining reserve-eligibility in PEAs in which there is a long-term spectrum lease. T-Mobile also advocates that the population-weighted megahertz number for each service provider in each PEA should be rounded up to the next whole number. These issues are beyond the scope of the corrections process set forth in the last Public Notice.

    Federal Communications Commission. Joel Taubenblatt, Acting Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-03058 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-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 March 1, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Robert L. Chandonnet, individually, Muskegon, Michigan; to acquire voting shares of Community Shores Bank Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Community Shores Bank, both in Muskegon, Michigan.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 9, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02906 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0363] Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Used in Orthopedic Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices”. The guidance identifies the types of UHMWPE currently in use in orthopedic implants, as well as the recommended information and testing that should be included in premarket submissions for such devices. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-0363 for “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Allen, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 1512, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6402.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices”. FDA has developed this guidance document for members of industry who submit, and FDA staff who review, information regarding orthopedic devices using UHMWPE material. This guidance is intended to provide recommendations when finalized regarding the characterization and testing of orthopedic devices that use UHMWPE materials such as conventional UHMWPE, highly crosslinked UHMWPE, and highly crosslinked UHMWPE containing vitamin E. This document also outlines the information FDA recommends industry include in a submission to FDA to characterize the UHMWPE material (e.g., material description, sterility, biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and chemical properties).

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on UHMWPE used in orthopedic devices. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1300006 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The guidance document “Characterization of Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Used in Orthopedic Devices” refers to previously approved information collections found in FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 are approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts B and E, are approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, are approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; and the collections of information in the guidance document entitled “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” are approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02879 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0115] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. 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 of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on “Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standard.”

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0115 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION”. The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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. “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 provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards—OMB Control Number 0910-0601—Extension

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2006 (71 FR 41221), FDA announced the availability of a draft document entitled “Manufactured Food Regulatory Program Standards (MFRPS).” These program standards are the framework that States should use to design and manage their manufactured food programs. There are 42 State programs enrolled, which may receive up to $300,000 each year for a period of 5 years provided there is significant conformance with the 10 standards.

    In the first year of implementing the program standards, the State program conducts a baseline self-assessment to determine if it meets the elements of each standard. The State program should use the worksheets and forms contained in the draft program standards; however, it can use alternate forms that are equivalent. The State program maintains the documents and verifies records required for each standard. The information contained in the documents must be current and fit-for-use. If the State program fails to meet all program elements and documentation requirements of a standard, it develops a strategic plan which includes the following: (1) The individual element of documentation requirement of the standard that was not met, (2) improvements needed to meet the program element or documentation requirement of the standard, and (3) projected completion dates for each task.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    State Departments of Agriculture or Health 42 1 42 750 31,500 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden has been calculated as 750 hours per respondent. This burden was determined by capturing the average amount of time for each respondent to assess the current state of the program and work toward implementation of each of the 10 standards contained in MFRPS. The hours per respondent will change as accounted for in the continuing improvement and self-sufficiency of the program.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02888 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0114] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Request for Samples and Protocols AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Request for Samples and Protocols” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 24, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Request for Samples and Protocols” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0206. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02882 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public.

    Name of Committee: Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on April 7, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

    Contact Person: Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA) 207999, obeticholic acid oral tablets, submitted by Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., proposed for the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA or as monotherapy in adults unable to tolerate UDCA.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before March 24, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before March 16, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 17, 2016.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02857 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0268] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 9, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Labeling of Certain Beers Subject to the Labeling Jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0728. The approval expires on January 31, 2019. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02880 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0148] Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing; Influenza Virus Neuramindase AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed in this document is owned by an Agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing in accordance with Federal regulations to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of Federally funded research and development.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For licensing information and copies of the patent applications: Alice Welch, Technology Transfer Program Office, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4226, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-2561, FAX: 301-847-3539. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    For parties interested in licensing or collaborative research activities: William Ronnenberg, Technology Transfer Program Office, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4214, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-4561, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description.

    Title of Abstract: Therapeutic and prophylactic anti-Influenza virus neuraminidase 1 (N1) antibody (CD6) with a novel epitope that spans neuramindase (NA) dimers.

    Description of Technology: Influenza virus neuramindase (NA) protein is a surface protein that plays an essential role in virus replication. Drugs and antibodies that block NA function can reduce both the symptoms and the length of illness; however, variants of influenza virus are resistant to NA inhibitors. The neuramindase 1 (N1) subtype of NA is important because it is found in the two pandemic H1N1 influenza virus strains (1918 Spanish flu and 2009 swine flu) and the H5N1 avian influenza virus. Anti-neuramindase antibody CD6 is a novel antibody that spans a conserved 30 amino acid epitope across the lateral face of a neuramindase (NA) dimer.

    The subject technology may offer an alternative to therapeutic NA inhibitors currently available. CD6 is a potent monoclonal antibody against N1 subtypes of NA that inhibits the enzymatic activity of the NA protein, including NA variants resistant to NA inhibitors. In a murine model of infection, a single dose of antibody was protective against lethal challenge with H1N1 influenza virus. The CD6 antibody can potentially be used in combination with other antibodies in an antibody “cocktail” or in conjunction with other therapeutic agents. Additionally, this unique anti-NA antibody may be useful in combination with known neutralizing anti-hemagglutinin (HA) antibodies.

    Potential Commercial Applications

    • Prophylactic and therapeutic against influenza virus infections;

    • Diagnostic tests for influenza virus infections; and

    • Reagent to measure the potency of H1N1 NA in influenza virus vaccines.

    Competitive Advantages

    • Monoclonal antibody demonstrated to be effective against circulating H1N1 influenza viruses;

    • Monoclonal antibody binds a novel, conserved epitope spanning NA dimers; and

    • Monoclonal antibody is well-suited for an antibody cocktail that includes anti-HA antibodies.

    Development Stage: Early state; In vitro data available; In vivo data available (animal).

    Inventors: Hongquan Wan (FDA); Maryna Eichelberger (FDA); Hua Yang (CDC); James Stevens (CDC); David Shore (CDC); and Rebecca Garten (CDC).

    Publication: Wan, H., H. Yang, D. A. Shore, R. J. Garten, L. Couzens, J. Gao, L. Jiang, P. J. Carney, J. Villanueva, J. Stevens, and M. C. Eichelberger. “Structural Characterization of a Protective Epitope Spanning A(H1N1)pdm09 Influenza Virus Neuraminidase Monomers.” 6:6114, Nature Communications, 2015.

    Intellectual Property: HHS Reference No. E-005-2015/0—U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/088,388 filed December 5, 2014.

    Licensing and Collaborative Research Opportunity: The invention is owned by an Agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

    The Food and Drug Administration is seeking statements of capability or interest from parties interested in collaborative research to further develop, evaluate, or commercialize this technology. Parties interested in licensing or collaborative research activities for this technology should contact William Ronnenberg (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Dated: February 4, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02887 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0742] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On July 8, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Registration of Producers of Drugs and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0045. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02881 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Annual Computational Science Symposium; Conference AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public conference.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration, in cosponsorship with the Pharmaceutical Users Software Exchange (PhUSE) is announcing a public conference entitled “The FDA/PhUSE Annual Computational Science Symposium.” The purpose of the conference is to help the broader community align and share experiences to advance computational science. At the conference, which will bring together FDA, industry, and academia, FDA will update participants on current initiatives, and collaborative project groups will address specific challenges in accessing and reviewing data to support product development. These project groups will focus on solutions and practical ways to implement them.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on March 13, 2016, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., and March 14 to 15, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Silver Spring Civic Building at Veterans Plaza, One Veterans Pl., Silver Spring, MD 20910, 1-240-777-5300.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Decker, PhUSE FDA Liaison Director, Pharmaceutical Users Software Exchange (PhUSE), Kent Innovation Centre, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 2QQ, United Kingdom; 1-609-514-5105 (US), [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Since 2008, the Office of Computational Science (formerly the Computational Science Center) of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has supported CDER's scientific community by offering innovative solutions that improve the scientific drug review process by integrating data, tools, services, and training. Since the first Computational Science Symposium four years ago, FDA has played an important part in the development and ongoing support of the conference and the associated PhUSE Computational Science Working Groups. The PhUSE Collaboration was formed to bring together experts from industry, FDA and other regulatory agencies, academia, and technology providers in specific areas to collaborate on computational science, describe best practices in challenging areas, and propose methods for addressing knowledge gaps. A description of the project groups and planned activities can be found at http://www.phuse.eu/css.aspx.

    II. Registration and Accommodations A. Registration

    All registrants (with the exception of a limited number of speakers and/or organizers who will have a complimentary registration) will pay a fee for this meeting to help defray the costs of facilities, materials, and food. Seats are limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis.

    To register, please complete the registration form online at (https://www.phuse.eu/PhUSE-CSS-2016-Registration.aspx. (FDA has verified the Web site address, but is not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register). The costs of registration for the different categories of attendees are as follows:

    Attendee category Fee
  • ($)
  • Government/nonprofit/academia 300 Industry Organizing Committee & PhUSE Board of Directors (password required) 350 Poster presenter (includes the printing of the poster by PhUSE, password required) 375 Industry 750 Single-day 650 Registering after the conference begins 1250

    Government and nonprofit attendees and exhibitors will need an invitation code to register at the discounted rate. An invitation code can be obtained by sending an email to: [email protected]

    B. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations. Attendees making reservations at the DoubleTree by Hilton Silver Spring Hotel are eligible for a reduced rate of $189 not including applicable taxes. Those making reservations online should use the following link to receive the reduced rate: http://doubletree.hilton.com/en/dt/groups/personalized/D/DCASSDT-PHU-20160312/index.jhtml?WT.mc_id=POG.

    If you need special accommodations because of disability, please contact Chris Decker (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 14 days in advance.

    III. Transcripts

    We expect that transcripts will be available approximately 30 days after the meeting. A transcript can be obtained either in hard copy or on CD-ROM, after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Send written requests to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857. Send faxed requests to 301-827-9267.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02877 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0247] Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approval; Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Prescription Drug User Fee Act Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Prescription Drug User Fee Act Products” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 21, 2015, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry on Formal Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for Prescription Drug User Fee Act Products” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0429. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02889 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting 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: NIGMS Initial Review Group, Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—D.

    Date: March 11, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02853 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R13 Research Grants.

    Date: March 16, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3An.12N, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Nina Sidorova, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.22, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-3663, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02852 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Renewal of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) (P20).

    Date: March 4, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Shinako Takada, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12M, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-9448 [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Clinical Trials.

    Date: March 8, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12N, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brian R. Pike, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12P, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3907, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Renewal of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) (P20).

    Date: March 9, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 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: Nina Sidorova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12K, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-2783, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: April 4, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12N, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Brian R. Pike, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An.12P, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3907, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02850 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting 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 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 contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Standardized Rechargeable Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (8921).

    Date: March 15, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02848 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse; 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 on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, NIH Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00).

    Date: March 2, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Susan O. McGuire, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4245, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-435-1426, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Identification of Genetic and Genomic Variants by Next-Gen Sequencing in Non-human Animal Models (U01).

    Date: March 2, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 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: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Room 4228, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 451-3086, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, NIDA Translational Avant-Garde Award for Development of Medication to Treat Substance Use Disorders (UG3/UH3).

    Date: March 4, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Room 4228, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 451-3086, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Phase II in person interview: Avenir Award Program for Research on Substance Abuse and HIV/AIDS (DP2).

    Date: March 8, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

    Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Phase II in person interview: Avenir Award Program for Genetics or Epigenetics of Substance Abuse (DP1).

    Date: March 10, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Courtyard by Marriott, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Contact Person: Hiromi Ono, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-6020, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Exploratory Studies of Smoking Cessation Interventions for People with Schizophrenia (R21/R33).

    Date: March 11, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 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: Jose F. Ruiz, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, Room 4228, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 451-3086, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Loan Repayment 2016.

    Date: March 15, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, NIDA Research “Center of Excellence” Grant Program (P50).

    Date: March 16, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Jagadeesh S. Rao, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4234, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-9511, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, NIDA Core Center of Excellence Grant Program (P30).

    Date: March 17, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Jagadeesh S. Rao, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4234, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-9511, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02849 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 the following meeting.

    The meeting 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: NIGMS Initial Review Group; Training and Workforce Development Subcommittee—C.

    Date: March 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Ritz-Carlton Hotel, 1700 Tysons Boulevard, McLean, VA 22102.

    Contact Person: Mona R. Trempe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3998, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 8, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02851 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0017] Policy Letter: Guidance for Training of Deck Officers on Vessels Subject to the International Code for Ships Operating in the Polar Waters AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the availability, in the docket, of a policy letter which provides voluntary guidance for the training of deck officers on vessels operating in polar waters. It recommends training measures that will achieve a higher level of safety for mariners working in this specialized polar environment. It is applicable to SOLAS vessels operating outside the boundary line and subject to the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar Code). The draft policy letter and voluntary guidance would not apply to vessels on voyages that do not operate in areas subject to the Polar Code.

    DATES:

    This policy letter is effective on February 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this document, contact Cathleen Mauro, Marine Personnel Qualifications Division (CG-OES-1), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1449, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Viewing Materials in the Docket

    The policy letter is available in the docket and can be viewed by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2016-0017 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.”

    Background and Purpose

    Current shipping trends show an increase in the number of vessels regularly transiting remote polar areas. Vessels in polar waters experience unpredictable and poor weather conditions, degraded navigation tools, threats to operating equipment and increased stability concerns. In response to the challenges faced by these vessels and the concern for their safe operation, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has adopted a mandatory code, the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters, commonly referred to as the Polar Code. The Polar Code addresses safety and environmental requirements for vessels, as well as the level of training required for deck officers, and is expected to come into force on January 1, 2017.

    In order to obtain input from U.S. stakeholders and to facilitate the development of the U.S. position at the IMO on the training requirements needed to support the Polar Code, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) chartered a working group in 2013 to address mariner training in support of the polar code. The working group developed a proposal that included the training competencies for U.S. mariners serving on ships operating in polar waters. The working group held multiple meetings and provided recommendations on minimum standards of competence, sea service, and recency requirements for polar training at the basic and advanced levels. The group also developed recommendations on how existing mariners with experience operating in polar waters would be grandfathered under the new requirements. MERPAC adopted the working group's recommendations, which provided the basis of the U.S. position regarding the relevant amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW Convention), 1978, as amended, and the Seafarers' Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code). The STCW Convention and Code provide the international standards for seafarers.

    Through the work of the IMO's Sub-committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW), amendments to the STCW Convention and Code were developed to define the training requirements needed to support the implementation of the Polar Code. These amendments were approved by the Maritime Safety Committee on its Ninety Fifth Session (MSC 95), and are expected to be adopted by the IMO in July of 2016. The amendments are expected to enter into force on January 1, 2018.

    Cognizant that there is a gap between the time the Polar Code enters into force on January 1, 2017 and the adoption of the amendments to the STCW Convention by IMO in July of 2016, the Coast Guard has developed a policy letter that recommends training guidelines for deck officers on vessels operating in polar waters. The Coast Guard is providing this guidance to ensure there are sufficiently trained mariners by the time the Polar Code enters into force.

    Discussion

    Recognizing that the operation of ships sailing in polar waters calls for specific education, training, experience and related qualifications for officers, Resolution 11 of the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention included non-mandatory guidance on training for deck and engineer officers serving on ships operating in polar waters. The guidance is contained in Section B-V/g of the STCW Code. The training requirements of the Polar Code, however, go beyond what is addressed in Section B-V/g of the STCW Code, by utilizing a risk-assessment to addresses the applicability of different levels of training required for deck officers engaged on ships operating in polar waters. Chapter 12 of The Polar Code identifies the level of training required for deck officers on ships subject to the Polar Code taking into account the type of vessel and the ice conditions in the operating area. The levels of training are either Basic or Advanced Training for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. The interim guidance in this policy is based upon the amendments to the STCW Convention and Code supporting the mandatory training requirements in Chapter 12 of the Polar Code.

    The requirements to meet the standards of competence for Basic or Advanced Training for Ships Operating in Polar Waters are defined in the STCW amendments supporting the Polar Code. A mariner may satisfy the standard of competence for Basic or Advanced Training in Polar Code Operations by meeting the respective sea service and training requirements prescribed in Enclosure (1) of the Policy Letter.

    By meeting the basic or advanced training standard required by the Polar Code, mariners are also meeting the familiarization requirements of 46 CFR 15.405, which states that each credentialed mariner must be familiar with the relevant characteristics of the vessel appropriate to his or her duties and responsibilities prior to assuming those duties and responsibilities. On board a seagoing vessel, this responsibility rests with both the mariner and the employer as set forth in 46 CFR 15.1105, which requires mariners subject to STCW to complete familiarization training before performing any duty or being assigned any responsibility unless they are familiar with those duties and responsibilities and with all of the vessel's arrangements, installations, equipment, procedures, and characteristics relevant to his or her routine and emergency duties or responsibilities.

    If training regulations are published, training completed to meet the requirements described in the policy letter may be evaluated on a case by case basis, and considered to meet part of the transitional provisions of the training requirements for Basic or Advanced Polar Waters Operations.

    Voluntary Policy

    The guidance provided in this policy letter is voluntary, except where existing regulatory requirements are discussed. Although it may assist the industry, public, Coast Guard, and other Federal and State regulators in applying existing statutory and regulatory requirements, the policy letter and guidance it contains are not a substitute for applicable legal requirements nor are they regulations themselves. We note the ongoing work of the IMO in this area, in particular regarding training of personnel engaged in polar waters. Developments within this body will be taken into account during possible future revisions of the draft policy letter. During the course of local operations, each Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) has discretionary authority on how best to address specific safety and security concerns within his or her area of responsibility consistent with 33 CFR 1.01-30. Nothing in the policy letter or the guidance it contains is meant to override or limit the discretion of the COTP when addressing the unique safety concerns of vessels operating in polar waters.

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: February 8, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02890 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, Llc, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 12, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 12, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 100-B Redoubt Rd., Yorktown, VA 23692, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API
  • Chapters
  • Title
    3 Tank Gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 9 Density Determinations. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurement.

    AmSpec Services, LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-02 D1298 Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Meter 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter 27-57 D7039 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products Dated: February 5, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02960 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, As a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Inspectorate America Corporation has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 22, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 22, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Inspectorate America Corporation, 2947 Dutton Mill Rd., Suite A-1, Aston, PA 19014, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Inspectorate America Corporation is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API
  • chapters
  • Title
    3 Tank Gauging 7 Temperature Determination 8 Sampling 9 Density Determinations 12 Calculations 17 Maritime Measurement

    Inspectorate America Corporation is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-02 D1298 Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Meter. 27-03 D4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-05 D4928 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-54 D1796 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02951 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 29, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 29, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 1300 North Delaware St., Paulsboro, NJ 08066, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API Chapters Title 1 Vocabulary 3 Tank Gauging 7 Temperature Determination 8 Sampling 11 Physical Properties 12 Calculations 17 Maritime Measurement AmSpec Services, LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 D287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products. 27-02 D1298 Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Meter. 27-03 D4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 D93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-53 D2709 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge. 27-54 D1796 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products. Pending D4377 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). Pending D3606 Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. Pending D2699 Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. Pending D2700 Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. Pending D5599 Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection. Pending D5769 Determination of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02954 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt LP as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Saybolt LP has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 3, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The accreditation and approval of Saybolt LP as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 3, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Saybolt LP, 201 Deerwood Glen Dr., Deer Park TX 77536, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Saybolt LP is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API
  • chapters
  • Title
    3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime measurement.

    Saybolt LP is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-50 ASTM D-93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-13 ASTM D-4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. 27-04 ASTM D-95 Standard test method for water in petroleum products and bituminous materials by distillation. 27-06 ASTM D-473 Standard test method for sediment in crude oils and fuel oils by the extraction method. 27-08 ASTM D-86 Standard test method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure. 27-01 ASTM D-287 Standard test method for API gravity of crude petroleum and petroleum products (Hydrometer method). 27-02 ASTM D-1298 Standard practice for density, relative density (specific gravity), or API gravity of crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products by hydrometer method. 27-03 ASTM D-4006 Standard test method for water in crude oil by distillation. 27-05 ASTM D-4928 Standard test method for water by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-07 ASTM D-4807 Standard test method for sediment in crude oil by membrane filtration. 27-11 ASTM D-445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-14 ASTM D-2622 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by wavelength energy-dispersive X-Ray spectrometer. 27-46 ASTM D-5002 Standard test method for density and relative density of crude oils by digital density analyzer. 27-48 ASTM D-4052 Standard test method for density and relative density of liquids by digital density analyzer. 27-53 ASTM D-2709 Standard test method for water & sediment in middle distillate fuels by centrifuge. 27-58 ASTM D-5191 Standard test method for vapor pressure of petroleum products (Mini Method).

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: February 5, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02961 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1557] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1557, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 22, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Maricopa County, Arizona and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 15-09-0355S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2015 Town of Wickenburg Town Hall, 155 North Tegner Street, Suite A, Wickenburg, AZ 85390. Unincorporated Areas of Maricopa County Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009. Santa Clara County, California and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-09-2194S Preliminary Date: July 8, 2015 City of Milpitas Engineering Division, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035. City of Mountain View Public Works Department, 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. City of San Jose Department of Public Works, 200 East Santa Clara Street, Tower -3rd Floor, San Jose, CA 95113. City of Santa Clara Planning and Inspection Department, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050. City of Sunnyvale Department of Public Works, 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086. Unincorporated Areas of Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110. Santa Cruz County, California and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-09-0853S Preliminary Date: September 28, 2015 City of Capitola City Hall, 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010. City of Santa Cruz City Hall, Planning Department: Permits, Building, Zoning, 809 Center Street, Room 206, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. Unincorporated Areas of Santa Cruz County County of Santa Cruz, Planning Department, 701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor, Santa Cruz, CA 95060. Noble County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project:15-05-4783S Preliminary Date: September 18, 2015 Unincorporated Areas of Noble County Noble County South Complex, 2090 North State Road 9, Suite 2, Albion, IN 46701. Olmsted County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project:15-05-5175S Preliminary Date: September 14, 2015 City of Eyota City Hall, 38 South Front Street Southwest, Eyota, MN 55934. City of Pine Island City Hall, 250 South Main Street, Pine Island, MN 55963.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02912 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001] Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for Recommending a Cost Share Adjustment AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita indicator for recommending cost share adjustments for major disasters declared on or after January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, is $137.

    DATES:

    This notice applies to major disasters declared on or after January 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Roche, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3834.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.47, the statewide per capita indicator that is used to recommend an increase of the Federal cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406 and emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is adjusted annually. The adjustment to the indicator is based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the U.S. Department of Labor. For disasters declared on January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, the qualifying indicator is $137 per capita of state population.

    This adjustment is based on an increase of 0.7 percent in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the 12-month period that ended December 2015. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on January 20, 2016.

    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02908 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.

    DATES:

    The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.

    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 22, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. State and county Location and case No. Chief executive officer of community Community map repository Effective date of
  • modification
  • Community
  • No.
  • Arizona: Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Goodyear (15-09-0312P) The Honorable Georgia Lord, Mayor, City of Goodyear, 190 North Litchfield Road, Goodyear, AZ 85338 City Hall, 190 North Litchfield Road, Goodyear, AZ 85338 Dec. 4, 2015 040046 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) Unincorporated areas of Maricopa County (15-09-0312P) The Honorable Steve Chucri, Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, 301 West Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 Flood Control District of Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009 Dec. 4, 2015 040037 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Chandler (15-09-0578P) The Honorable Jay Tibshraeny, Mayor, City of Chandler, 175 South Arizona Avenue, Chandler, AZ 85225 Public Works Department, 215 East Buffalo Street, Chandler, AZ 85244 Oct. 9, 2015 040040 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) Town of Gilbert (15-09-0578P) The Honorable John Lewis, Mayor, Town of Gilbert, 50 East Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, AZ 85296 Municipal Center, 50 East Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, AZ 85296 Oct. 9, 2015 040044 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) Unincorporated areas of Maricopa County (15-09-0578P) The Honorable Denny Barney, District 1 Supervisor, Maricopa County, 301 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 Flood Control District, Maricopa County, 2801 West Durango Street, Phoenix, AZ 85009 Oct. 9, 2015 040037 Maricopa (FEMA Docket No.: B-1552) City of Peoria (15-09-1335P) The Honorable Cathy Carlat, Mayor, City of Peoria, 8401 W. Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 City Hall, 8401 West Monroe Street, Peoria, AZ 85345 Dec. 11, 2015 040050 Pima (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) Unincorporated areas of Pima County (15-09-0406P) The Honorable Sharon Bronson, Chair, Pima County Board of Supervisors, 130 West Congress Street, 11th Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Pima County Flood Control District, 97 East Congress Street, 3rd Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Aug. 19, 2015 040073 Pima (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Tucson (15-09-0584P) The Honorable Jonathan Rothschild, Mayor, City of Tucson, City Hall, 255 W. Alameda Street, Tucson, AZ 85701 Planning and Development Services, 201 North Stone Avenue, 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701 Nov. 13, 2015 040076 Pinal (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Maricopa (15-09-0819P) The Honorable Christian Price, Mayor, City of Maricopa, 39700 West Civic Center Plaza, Maricopa, AZ 85138 City Hall, 45145 West Madison Avenue, Maricopa, AZ 85139 Aug. 21, 2015 040052 Yavapai (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Cottonwood (14-09-4202P) The Honorable Diane Joens, Mayor, City of Cottonwood, 827 North Main Street, Cottonwood, AZ 86326 Public Works Department, 1490 West Mingus Avenue, Cottonwood, AZ 86326 Aug. 20, 2015 040096 California: Alameda (FEMA Docket No.: B-1552) City of Alameda (15-09-1763X) The Honorable Trish Herrera Spencer, Mayor, City of Alameda, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 950 West Mall Square, Alameda, CA 94501 Dec. 11, 2015 060002 Los Angeles (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Burbank (15-09-0591P) The Honorable Bob Frutos, Mayor, City of Burbank, 275 East Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502 Public Works Department, 275 East Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502 Dec. 10, 2015 065018 Placer (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Rocklin (15-09-0659P) The Honorable George Magnuson, Mayor, City of Rocklin, 3970 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677 Engineering Division, 4081 Alvis Court, Rocklin, CA 95677 Aug. 21, 2015 060242 Riverside (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Murrieta (15-09-1205P) The Honorable Harry Ramos, Mayor, City of Murrieta, 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562 Department of Public Works and Engineering, 1 Town Square, Murrieta, CA 92562 Aug. 19, 2015 060751 Sacramento (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Citrus Heights (15-09-1345P) The Honorable Sue Frost, Mayor, City of Citrus Heights, 6237 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621 General Services Department, Engineering Division, 6237 Fountain Square Drive, Citrus Heights, CA 95621 Oct. 22, 2015 060765 San Bernardino (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of San Bernardino (14-09-2935P) The Honorable R. Carey Davis, Mayor, City of San Bernardino, 300 North D Street, 6th Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92418 Water Department, 399 Chandler Place, San Bernardino, CA 92408 Aug. 24, 2015 060281 San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Santee (15-09-0699P) The Honorable Randy Voepel, Mayor, City of Santee, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071 City Hall, 10601 Magnolia Avenue, Santee, CA 92071 Nov. 20, 2015 060703 San Diego (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) Unincorporated areas of San Diego County (14-09-4066P) The Honorable Bill Horn, Chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 335, San Diego, CA 92101 Department of Public Works, Flood Control, 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 410, San Diego, CA 92123 Aug. 21, 2015 060284 Santa Clara (FEMA Docket No.: B-1552) City of Morgan Hill (15-09-1137P) The Honorable Steve Tate, Mayor, City of Morgan Hill, 17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Public Works Department, 17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Dec. 14, 2015 060346 Ventura (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Simi Valley (15-09-1169P) The Honorable Bob Huber, Mayor, City of Simi Valley, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 Public Works Department, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063 Oct. 19, 2015 060421 Nevada: Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Henderson (15-09-0701P) The Honorable Andy A. Hafen, Mayor, City of Henderson, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Public Works Department, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Aug. 24, 2015 320005 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) City of Henderson (15-09-0720P) The Honorable Andy A. Hafen, Mayor, City of Henderson, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Public Works Department, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Aug. 24, 2015 320005 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) City of Henderson (15-09-0952P) The Honorable Andy A. Hafen, Mayor, City of Henderson, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Public Works Department, 240 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 Dec. 10, 2015 320005 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (15-09-0720P) The Honorable Steve Sisolak, Chairman, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 6th Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Office of the Director of Public Works, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Aug. 24, 2015 320003 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1537) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (15-09-1082P) The Honorable Steve Sisolak, Chairman, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Office of the Director of Public Works, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Oct. 14, 2015 320003 Clark (FEMA Docket No.: B-1519) Unincorporated areas of Clark County (15-09-1167P) The Honorable Steve Sisolak, Chairman, Clark County Board of Commissioners, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Office of the Director of Public Works, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89155 Dec. 3, 2015 320003
    [FR Doc. 2016-02909 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1551] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1551, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472 (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: January 22, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding Watershed Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Carroll County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Whitesburg City Hall, 788 Main Street, Whitesburg, GA 30185. Unincorporated Areas of Carroll County Carroll County Administration Building, Community Development Office, 423 College Street, Carrollton, GA 30117. Columbus Consolidated Government, Georgia Columbus Consolidated Government Department of Engineering, Storm Water Division, 420 Tenth Street, 2nd Floor, Columbus, GA 31901. Harris County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Harris County Harris County Commissioners' Office, 104 North College Street, Hamilton, GA 31811. Heard County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Franklin City Hall, 118 Davis Street, Franklin, GA 30217. Unincorporated Areas of Heard County Heard County Building and Zoning Department, 215 East Court Square, Room 19, Franklin, GA 30217. Troup County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of LaGrange City Hall, 200 Ridley Avenue, LaGrange, GA 30240. City of West Point City Hall, 730 First Avenue, West Point, GA 31833. Unincorporated Areas of Troup County Troup County Government Center, 100 Ridley Avenue, LaGrange, GA 30240. Upper Ocmulgee Watershed Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Butts County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Flovilla Butts County Community Services Department, 625 West Third Street, Suite Three, Jackson, GA 30233. City of Jackson Butts County Community Services Department, 625 West Third Street, Suite Three, Jackson, GA 30233. City of Jenkinsburg Butts County Community Services Department, 625 West Third Street, Suite Three, Jackson, GA 30233. Unincorporated Areas of Butts County Butts County Community Services Department, 625 West Third Street, Suite Three, Jackson, GA 30233. Jasper County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Jasper County Jasper County Courthouse, Planning and Zoning Department, 126 West Greene Street, Suite 17, Monticello, GA 31064. Jones County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Gray Jones County Planning and Zoning Department, 166 Industrial Boulevard, Gray, GA 31032. Unincorporated Areas of Jones County Jones County Planning and Zoning Department, 166 Industrial Boulevard, Gray, GA 31032. Macon-Bibb County, Georgia (Consolidated Government) Macon-Bibb County (Consolidated Government) Macon-Bibb County Engineer's Office, 780 Third Street, Macon, GA 31201. Monroe County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Forsyth City Hall, 26 North Jackson Street, Forsyth, GA 31029. Unincorporated Areas of Monroe County Board of Commissioners' Building, 38 West Main Street, Forsyth, GA 31029. Spalding County, Georgia, and Incorporated Areas City of Griffin City Hall, 100 South Hill Street, Griffin, GA 30224. City of Orchard Hill Orchard Hill City Hall, 2972 Macon Road, Griffin, GA 30224. Unincorporated Areas of Spalding County Spalding County Community Development Center, 119 East Solomon Street, Suite 203, Griffin, GA 30223.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Jackson County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 14-06-1860S Preliminary Dates: February 3, 2010 and October 31, 2014 City of Amagon City Hall, 209 Amagon Avenue, Amagon, AR 72005. City of Campbell Station Campbell Station City Hall, 5005 Keeter Circle, Tuckerman, AR 72473. City of Diaz City Hall, 3401 South Main Street, Diaz, AR 72043. City of Newport City Hall, 615 Third Street, Newport, AR 72112. City of Swifton City Hall, 101 Highway 67, Swifton, AR 72471. City of Tuckerman City Hall, 200 West Main Street, Tuckerman, AR 72473. City of Tupelo City Hall and Community Building, 32 Pecan Circle, Tupelo, AR 72169. Town of Beedeville Town Hall, 121 McFaddin Street, Beedeville, AR 72014. Town of Grubbs Town Hall, 420 North Main Street, Grubbs, AR 72431. Town of Jacksonport Town Hall, 304 Avenue Street, Jacksonport, AR 72075. Town of Weldon Fire Station, 1125 Highway 17 South, Weldon, AR 72112. Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County Jackson County Office of Emergency Management, 3405 South Main Street, Diaz, AR 72043. Harris County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 11-06-0896S Preliminary Date: July 29, 2015 City of Houston Floodplain Management Office, 1002 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Houston, TX 77002. Unincorporated Areas of Harris County Harris County Permit Office, 10555 Northwest Freeway, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77092.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02911 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4245-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001] Texas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4245-DR), dated November 25, 2015, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 25, 2015.

    Smith County for Public Assistance The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02907 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0070] Infrastructure Protection Gateway Facility Surveys AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670-NEW.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Infrastructure Protection (IP), Infrastructure Information Collection Division (IICD), Infrastructure Protection Gateway Program will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/IP/IICD, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0602, Washington, DC 20528-0612. Emailed requests should go to Kimberly Sass, [email protected] Comments must be identified by “DHS-2015-0070”and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    • Email: Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Sass, DHS/NPPD/IP/IICD, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Originally under the direction of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 (HSPD-7) (2003) and now under the authority of Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) (2013), DHS/NPPD/IP has developed the IP Gateway—a centrally managed repository of infrastructure capabilities allowing the Critical Infrastructure (CI) community to work in conjunction with each other toward the same goals. This collection involves the standardized recording, via a series of web-based forms, of a significant amount of information assembled during voluntary physical facility review surveys. The survey is used to analyze risks and vulnerabilities to a facility and how they can mitigate risks and vulnerabilities. Questions focus on whether specific sets of controls and operational best practices are planned, defined, implemented, measured, managed, and assessed on a regular basis across all aspects of facility use and operation. Surveys are usually completed by government personnel, but can be performed by individual site owners as well.

    Analysis

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection, Infrastructure Information Collection Division, Infrastructure Protection Gateway Program.

    Title: Infrastructure Protection (IP) Gateway Facility Surveys.

    OMB Number: 1670-NEW.

    Frequency: Annually, quarterly, and monthly.

    Affected Public: Chief Information Officers, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Technology Officers, and Federal and State, local, tribal and territorial communities involved in the protection of CI.

    Number of Respondents: 2,915 respondents (estimate).

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 7.5 hours (estimate).

    Total Burden Hours: 21,863 annual burden hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $1,168,795.98 (estimate).

    Dated: February 8, 2016. David Epperson, Chief Information Officer, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02871 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0107] Agency Information Collection Activities: H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification, No Form; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on September 22, 2015, at 80 FR 57201, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive one comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806 (This is not a toll-free number). All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0107.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2009-0015 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: No Form; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. The notification requirement is necessary to ensure that alien workers maintain their nonimmigrant status and will help prevent H-2 workers from engaging in unauthorized employment.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection H-2 Petitioner's Employment Related or Fee Related Notification is 1,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is .5 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 850 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $8,500.

    Dated: February 2, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02363 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2015, at 80 FR 49262, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive four public comments in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806 (This is not a toll-free number). All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0015.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0018 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-140; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. The information furnished on Form I-140 will be used by USCIS to classify aliens under sections 203(b)(1), 203(b)(2) or 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-140 is 77,149 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.08 hours (1 hour and 5 minutes).

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 83,321 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $32,132,559.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02915 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0111] Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form I-129CW; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection. AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection notice was previously published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2015, at 80 FR 54574, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive one comment in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 14, 2016. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted via fax at (202) 395-5806 (This is not a toll-free number). All submissions received must include the agency name and the OMB Control Number 1615-0111.

    You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2012-0011 in the search box. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection Request: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129CW; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government; or State, local or Tribal Government. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to determine eligibility for the requested immigration benefits. An employer uses this form to petition USCIS for an alien to temporarily enter as a nonimmigrant into the CNMI to perform services or labor as a CNMI-Only Transitional Worker (CW-1). An employer also uses this form to request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien worker. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for these benefits, and ensuring that the basic information required to determine eligibility, is provided by the petitioners.

    Secondary: Individuals or Households. USCIS collects biometrics from aliens present in the CNMI at the time of requesting initial grant of CW-1 status. The information is used to verify the alien's identity, background information and ultimately adjudicate their request for CW-1 status.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-129CW is 18,000 (6,000 respondents from Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government; or State, local or Tribal Government and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; 12,000 respondents from Individuals or Households and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours).

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 38,160 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $2,205,000.

    Dated: February 9, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02942 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5696-N-18] Additional Clarifying Guidance, Waivers and Alternative Requirements for Grantees in Receipt of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds Under Public Law 113-2 for the Submission of Expenditure Deadline Extension Requests and Urgent Need Certification Extensions and for the Provision of Interim Mortgage Assistance by the State of New York AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice provides additional clarifying guidance for all Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grantees in receipt of funds under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (the Appropriations Act), with regard to the submission of requests for an extension of the 2-year expenditure deadline established for funds provided under the Appropriations Act and the continued use of the alternative urgent need national objective. This notice also provides an alternative requirement for New York State as a grantee in receipt of CDBG-DR funds under the Appropriations Act. This alternative requirement addresses the period of time in which interim mortgage assistance may be provided to beneficiaries in the State's housing recovery programs.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 17, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stanley Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-708-3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Facsimile inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 202-401-2044. (Except for the “800” number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) Email inquiries may be sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Applicable Rules, Statutes, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements III. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance IV. Finding of No Significant Impact I. Background

    The Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 113-2, approved January 29, 2013) made available $16 billion in CDBG-DR funds for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas, resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5121 et. seq.) (Stafford Act) due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. On March 1, 2013, the President issued a sequestration order pursuant to section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (2 U.S.C. 901a), and reduced the amount of funding for CDBG-DR grants under the Appropriations Act to $15.18 billion. To date, a total of $15.18 billion has been allocated or set aside: $13 billion in response to Hurricane Sandy, $514 million in response to disasters occurring in 2011 or 2012, $655 million in response to 2013 disasters, and $1 billion set aside for the National Disaster Resilience Competition.

    This notice applies to all CDBG-DR grantees in receipt of allocations under the Appropriations Act, which are described within the Federal Register notices published by the Department on March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14329), April 19, 2013 (78 FR 23578), May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32262), August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46999), November 18, 2013 (78 FR 69104), December 16, 2013 (78 FR 76154), March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17173), June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31964), July 11, 2014 (79 FR 40133), October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60490), October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62182), January 8, 2015 (80 FR 1039), April 2, 2015 (80 FR 17772), May 11, 2015 (80 FR 26942), August 25, 2015 (80 FR 51589), and November 18, 2015 (80 FR 72102), referred to collectively in this notice as the “prior notices.” The requirements of the prior notices continue to apply, except as modified by this notice.1

    1 Links to the prior notices, the text of the Appropriations Act, and additional guidance prepared by the Department for CDBG-DR grants, are available on the HUD Exchange Web site: https://www.hudexchange.info/cdbg-dr/cdbg-dr-laws-regulations-and-federal-register-notices/.

    II. Applicable Rules (Including Clarifying Guidance), Statutes, Waivers, and Alternative Requirements

    The Appropriations Act authorizes the Secretary to waive, or specify alternative requirements for, any provision of any statute or regulation that the Secretary administers in connection with HUD's obligation, or use by the recipient, of these funds (except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment). Waivers and alternative requirements are based upon a determination by the Secretary that good cause exists and that the waiver or alternative requirement is not inconsistent with the overall purposes of title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) (HCD Act). Regulatory waiver authority is also provided by 24 CFR 5.110, 91.600, and 570.5.

    For the waivers and alternative requirements described in this notice, the Secretary has determined that good cause exists and that the waiver and alternative requirements are not inconsistent with the overall purpose of the HCD Act. Grantees may request waivers and alternative requirements from the Department as needed to address specific needs related to their recovery activities. Under the requirements of the Appropriations Act, waivers must be published in the Federal Register at least 5 days before the effective date of such waiver.

    1. Timeline for the submission of expenditure deadline extension requests. The Appropriations Act requires the Department to obligate all funds provided under the Appropriations Act by September 30, 2017, and requires grantees to expend funds within 24-months of the date on which the Department obligates funds to a grantee. The Appropriations Act also authorizes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to grant waivers of the 24-month expenditure deadline. OMB authorized the Department to provide CDBG-DR grantees with expenditure deadline extensions for activities that are inherently long-term and where it would be impracticable to expend funds within the 24-month period and still achieve program missions, up to amounts approved by OMB. In the Federal Register notice published on May 11, 2015, (80 FR 26942), the Department established the process and criteria for the submission of expenditure deadline extension requests for CDBG-DR grantees in receipt of funds under the Appropriations Act. The May 11, 2015, notice requires these grantees to submit requests for the extension of an expenditure deadline at least 120 calendar days in advance of the expenditure deadline (80 FR 26944). Since the May 11, 2015, notice was published, the Department subsequently received, reviewed, and acted upon expenditure deadline extension requests from a number of CDBG-DR grantees in receipt of funds under the Appropriations Act. In some instances, the Department observed that events and circumstances beyond the control of the grantee may require grantees to request an extension of an expenditure deadline after the 120-calendar-day deadline has passed. The Department is therefore amending this requirement of the May 11, 2015, notice to provide that a grantee “submits the completed CDBG-DR Expenditure Deadline Extension Request template and any attachments to HUD in order to request consideration of the extension request at least 120 calendar days in advance of the expenditure deadline on the funds (or 60 days for funds expiring in calendar year 2015). HUD may, however, also accept requests from CDBG-DR grantees for the extension of an expenditure deadline less than 120 calendar days in advance of the deadline upon receipt of a letter from the chief executive officer of the grantee requesting the extension and a demonstration by the grantee that the request is required in order to achieve program missions. Grantees are advised however, that time constraints may not permit HUD to act upon requests that are received in close proximity to an expenditure deadline.”

    2. Urgent need national objective certification requirements. The March 5, 2013, notice (78 FR 14329) provided grantees receiving funds under the Appropriations Act with a waiver of the certification requirements for the documentation of the urgent need national objective, located at §§ 570.208(c) and 570.483(d), until 2 years after the date the Department obligates funds to a grantee. The May 11, 2015, notice allowed grantees seeking a waiver of an expenditure deadline to simultaneously seek an extension of the urgent need certification waiver. The extension of the urgent need certification waiver, however, is currently only effective after its publication in the Federal Register. This approach presents challenges for CDBG-DR grantees who receive an extension of an expenditure deadline for an activity associated with the urgent need certification, with the extended expenditure deadline in effect but with the urgent need certification waiver still requiring publication in the Federal Register.

    To accommodate the timely expenditure of funds, HUD is modifying the temporary, streamlined urgent need waiver and alternative requirement in paragraph VI.A.1.f. of the March 5, 2013, notice (78 FR 14336). This waiver and alternative requirement supersedes the information published in the May 11, 2015, notice and will allow grantees to more effectively implement urgent recovery activities by aligning the applicable urgent need national objective criteria with the expenditure deadline on the use of funds. The March 5, 2013, notice is modified to add the following alternative requirement for grantees that receive an extension of the expenditure deadline: For activities designed to respond to a disaster-related impact that poses a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, the grantee may continue to use the urgent need national objective until the end of the new expenditure deadline if the grantee meets the following requirements from the March 5, 2013, notice: (1) Before seeking the expenditure deadline extension, the grantee must reference in its Action Plan the type, scale, and location of the disaster-related impacts addressed by each program and/or activity that will meet the urgent need national objective; (2) before seeking the expenditure deadline extension, the grantee must identify these disaster related impacts in its Action Plan needs assessment; (3) the needs assessment must be updated as new or more detailed/accurate disaster-related impacts are known; and (4) the grantee must document how all programs and/or activities funded under the urgent need national objective respond to a disaster-related impact identified by the grantee.

    3. Alternative requirement to permit extended time for the provision of interim mortgage assistance (State of New York only). In the Federal Register notice published on March 5, 2013, the Department established an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8) to extend the authority of grantees under the Appropriations Act to provide interim mortgage assistance to qualified individuals from 3 months to up to 20 months (78 FR 14345). A grantee using this alternative requirement is required to document in its policies and procedures how it will determine the amount of assistance to be provided is necessary and reasonable. The State of New York has requested a modification of the 20-month limitation on the provision of interim mortgage assistance to authorize the assistance for a period of up to 36 months.

    Under the State's existing Interim Mortgage Assistance (IMA) program, financial assistance is available to eligible applicants to the NY Rising Housing Recovery Program who demonstrate financial difficulty in paying their mortgage due to additional housing expenses incurred as a result of their primary residence no longer being habitable. Interim mortgage assistance may be provided for past, current, and future debt obligations of the mortgage, capped at $3,000 per month for a maximum of 20 months or $60,000.

    On November 15, 2013, the Department approved Amendment 4 to the State's disaster recovery Action Plan to allocate $80,000,000 to the initial State IMA program. On May 27, 2014, the Department approved Amendment 6 to the State's disaster recovery Action Plan to modify the calculation of the IMA grant award based on a participant's monthly mortgage amount for their primary residence and proof of an additional housing payment. On April 13, 2014, the Department approved Amendment 8 to the State's disaster recovery Action Plan to enable the State to calculate partial IMA grant awards that reflect rental housing expenses incurred by participants while displaced, less any rental assistance received from insurance or government agencies.

    At the time the State submitted a request for a modification of the alternative requirement, 454 program participants were receiving IMA assistance and approximately 25 percent of those participants were low- and moderate-income households. In its request for a modification of the alternative requirement, the State indicated that in the absence of additional time to provide assistance, 287 IMA recipients would no longer qualify for IMA funds within the succeeding 12 months and that 26 percent of those recipients were low- and moderate-income households. In its request to provide IMA payments for a period of up to 36 months, the State cited a number of unanticipated developments that contributed to delays in the completion of assisted housing projects. Most notably, the State pointed to the prospect of increased National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) claim payments to NY Rising program participants as a result of fraudulent damage assessments conducted on behalf of the NFIP in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. The State indicated that uncertainty surrounding these payments, and the potential impact of the payments on the amount of CDBG-DR funds ultimately available to the homeowner, contributed to delays and supports an extended period of availability for IMA. Other factors cited by the State as contributing to the need for extended IMA are the limited pool of contractors experienced in undertaking the elevation of homes and the shorter Northeastern United States construction season. The State further noted that its own clarification process, through which applicants may appeal the ultimate amount of their CDBG-DR award, can also slow progress in completing repairs and contribute to the need for additional IMA.

    The State proposed to implement the extended period for IMA by initially maintaining the current 20 months of assistance for IMA participants. At the end of the 20-month period of assistance, the State may subsequently determine a need for an additional 16 months of IMA, for a total not to exceed 36 months of assistance. When a need for an extension of IMA is identified, the State will conduct an inspection of the property to determine if substantial construction progress has been made. If substantial construction progress has been made, the State may provide IMA for the additional authorized period of time, for a total period of assistance up to 36 months. If the inspection indicates that substantial progress has not been made, the extension of IMA will be provided only when the recipient agrees to participate in the newly established construction program within the NY Rising Housing Recovery Program. Under the construction program, the State will contract for and manage, on behalf of the IMA recipient, the rehabilitation of the IMA recipient's home. Prior to its initial implementation of the construction program, the State will determine the need for the IMA extension in those instances where substantial construction progress has not occurred and will give priority to the rehabilitation of homes for those IMA recipients receiving a total up to 36 months of IMA.

    After reviewing the State's request, and for the State of New York's IMA program only, the Department is modifying the provision of the March 5, 2013, Federal Register notice that limits the provision of interim mortgage assistance to a period of 20 months and establishing an alternative requirement that allows for the payment of assistance for a period of up to 36 months if the State meets the other requirements described in the above paragraph. The goal of this alternative requirement is to provide an extended period of IMA in order to minimize the risk of foreclosure of storm damaged homes while they are being rehabilitated with CDBG-DR funds and to return IMA recipients to their rehabilitated homes as quickly as possible. The State must implement this alternative requirement consistent with the approach outlined in its request and as described herein. This waiver and alternative requirement shall remain in effect until December 31, 2017, after which the State shall be authorized to offer interim mortgage assistance for a period no more than 20 months. Interim mortgage assistance is an authorized eligible public service activity and the State is reminded that IMA expenditures are subject to the 15 percent cap on public services established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8).

    Within 30 days of the effective date of this notice, the State must begin to implement its construction program for IMA recipients receiving an extended period of assistance and without substantial construction progress in the rehabilitation of their home. The State must have fully implemented the construction program for all IMA recipients within 6 months of the effective date of this notice. In addition, the State's policies and procedures must:

    (1) Document how the State will determine that “substantial progress” has or has not been made in the rehabilitation of an IMA recipient's home;

    (2) Document how the State will determine that the amount and period of assistance to be provided under this alternative requirement is necessary and reasonable;

    (3) Document how the State will prioritize the rehabilitation of homes of IMA recipients receiving a total up to 36 months of IMA;

    (4) Include internal controls designed to ensure that IMA provided to recipients is being used for its authorized purpose; and

    (5) Include a plan for assisting recipients that exhaust their IMA after 36 months but continue to have a need for assistance because the rehabilitation of their home has not been completed.

    III. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the disaster recovery grants under this notice is 14.269.

    IV. Finding of No Significant Impact

    A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the docket file must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    Dated: February 8, 2016. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02913 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5927-N-01] Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act—Debenture Interest Rates AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2016, is 21/4 percent. The interest rate for debentures issued under any other provision of the Act is the rate in effect on the date that the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date that the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. The interest rate for debentures issued under these other provisions with respect to a loan or mortgage committed or endorsed during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2016, is 27/8 percent. However, as a result of an amendment to section 224 of the Act, if an insurance claim relating to a mortgage insured under sections 203 or 234 of the Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, is paid in cash, the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating a claim shall be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the Federal Register.

    Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning January 1, 2016, is 27/8 percent; and (2) has approved the establishment of the debenture interest rate by the Secretary of HUD at 27/8 percent for the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2016. This interest rate will be the rate borne by debentures issued with respect to any insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4)) with insurance commitment or endorsement date (as applicable) within the first 6 months of 2016.

    For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:

    Effective
  • interest
  • rate
  • On or after Prior to
    91/2 Jan. 1, 1980 July 1, 1980. 97/8 July 1, 1980 Jan. 1, 1981. 113/4 Jan. 1, 1981 July 1, 1981. 127/8 July 1, 1981 Jan. 1, 1982. 123/4 Jan. 1, 1982 Jan. 1, 1983. 101/4 Jan. 1, 1983 July 1, 1983. 103/8 July 1, 1983 Jan. 1, 1984. 111/2 Jan. 1, 1984 July 1, 1984. 133/8 July 1, 1984 Jan. 1, 1985. 115/8 Jan. 1, 1985 July 1, 1985. 111/8 July 1, 1985 Jan. 1, 1986. 101/4 Jan. 1, 1986 July 1, 1986. 81/4 July 1, 1986 Jan. 1. 1987. 8 Jan. 1, 1987 July 1, 1987. 9 July 1, 1987 Jan. 1, 1988. 91/8 Jan. 1, 1988 July 1, 1988. 93/8 July 1, 1988 Jan. 1, 1989. 91/4 Jan. 1, 1989 July 1, 1989. 9 July 1, 1989 Jan. 1, 1990. 81/8 Jan. 1, 1990 July 1, 1990. 9 July 1, 1990 Jan. 1, 1991. 83/4 Jan. 1, 1991 July 1, 1991. 81/2 July 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992. 8 Jan. 1, 1992 July 1, 1992. 8 July 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1993. 73/4 Jan. 1, 1993 July 1, 1993. 7 July 1, 1993 Jan. 1, 1994. 65/8 Jan. 1, 1994 July 1, 1994. 73/4 July 1, 1994 Jan. 1, 1995. 83/8 Jan. 1, 1995 July 1, 1995. 71/4 July 1, 1995 Jan. 1, 1996. 61/2 Jan. 1, 1996 July 1, 1996. 71/4 July 1, 1996 Jan. 1, 1997. 63/4 Jan. 1, 1997 July 1, 1997. 71/8 July 1, 1997 Jan. 1, 1998. 63/8 Jan. 1, 1998 July 1, 1998. 61/8 July 1, 1998 Jan. 1, 1999. 51/2 Jan. 1, 1999 July 1, 1999. 61/8 July 1, 1999 Jan. 1, 2000. 61/2 Jan. 1, 2000 July 1, 2000. 61/2 July 1, 2000 Jan. 1, 2001. 6 Jan. 1, 2001 July 1, 2001. 57/8 July 1, 2001 Jan. 1, 2002. 51/4 Jan. 1, 2002 July 1, 2002. 53/4 July 1, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003. 5 Jan. 1, 2003 July 1, 2003. 41/2 July 1, 2003 Jan. 1, 2004. 51/8 Jan. 1, 2004 July 1, 2004. 51/2 July 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2005. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2005 July 1, 2005. 41/2 July 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2006 July 1, 2006. 53/8 July 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007. 43/4 Jan. 1, 2007 July 1, 2007. 5 July 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008. 41/2 Jan. 1, 2008 July 1, 2008. 45/8 July 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009. 41/8 Jan. 1, 2009 July 1, 2009. 41/8 July 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010. 41/4 Jan. 1, 2010 July 1, 2010. 41/8 July 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011. 37/8 Jan. 1, 2011 July 1, 2011. 41/8 July 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2012 July 1, 2012. 23/4 July 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013. 21/2 Jan. 1, 2013 July 1, 2013. 27/8 July 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 2014. 35/8 Jan. 1, 2014 July 1, 2014. 31/4 July 1, 2014 Jan. 1, 2015. 3 Jan. 1, 2015 July 1, 2015. 27/8 July 1, 2015 Jan. 1, 2016. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2016 July 1, 2016.

    Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).

    Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.

    The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning January 1, 2016, is 21/4 percent.

    The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.

    Authority:

    Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: January 21, 2016. Edward Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02870 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2015-N225; FXES11130100000C4-167-FF01E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of 76 Species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating 5-year status reviews for 76 species in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration in our reviews, we are requesting submission of new information no later than April 12, 2016. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    For the 67 species in Hawaii (see table below), submit information via U.S. mail to: Deputy Field Supervisor—Programmatic; Attention: 5-Year Review; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office; 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, Box 50088; Honolulu, HI 96850.

    For the Warner sucker, Willamette daisy, Kincaid's lupine, and rough popcornflower, submit information via U.S. mail to: Field Supervisor; Attention: 5-Year Review; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office; 2600 SE 98th Ave., Suite 100; Portland, OR 97266.

    For the northern Idaho ground squirrel, Bruneau Hot springsnail, Bliss Rapids, snail, Banbury Springs limpet, and Spaldings catchfly, submit information via U.S. mail to: Field Supervisor; Attention: 5-Year Review; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office; 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368; Boise, ID 83709.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory Koob, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), 808-792-9400 (for species in Hawaii); Jeff Dillon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, 503-231-6179 (for Warner sucker, Willamette daisy, Kincaid's lupine, and rough popcornflower); or Kim Garner, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 208-378-5243 (for northern Idaho ground squirrel, Bruneau Hot springsnail, Bliss Rapids, snail, Banbury Springs limpet, and Spaldings catchfly). Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Why do we conduct 5-year reviews?

    Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our factsheet.

    What information do we consider in the review?

    A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:

    (A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

    (B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

    (C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

    (D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

    (E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

    Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for these species.

    What Species Are Under Review?

    This notice announces our active review of the 76 species listed in the table below.

    Species for Which the Pacific Region Is Initiating a 5-Year Status Review Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule
  • (Federal Register citation and publication date)
  • ANIMALS Northern Idaho ground squirrel Urocitellus brunneus Threatened U.S.A. (ID) 65 FR 17779; 04/05/2000 Maui nukupuu Hemignathus lucidus affinis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Maui akepa Loxops coccineus ochraceus Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Poouli Melamprosops phaeosoma Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 40 FR 44149; 09/25/1975 Molokai thrush Myadestes lanaiensis rutha Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Crested honeycreeper Palmeria dolei Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Molokai creeper Paroreomyza flammea Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 35 FR 16047; 10/13/1970 Maui parrotbill Pseudonestor xanthophrys Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Hawaiian petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 32 FR 4001; 03/11/1967 Newell's Townsend's shearwater Puffinus auricularis newelli Threatened U.S.A. (HI) 40 FR 44149; 09/25/1975 Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis Threatened U.S.A. (OR) 50 FR 39117; 09/27/1985 Hawaiian picture-wing fly Drosophila differens Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 71 FR 26835; 05/09/2006 Hawaiian picture-wing fly Drosophila neoclavisetae Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 71 FR 26835; 05/09/2006 Flying earwig Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion nesiotes Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 75 FR 35990; 06/24/2010 Bruneau Hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Endangered U.S.A. (ID) 58 FR 5938; 01/25/1993 Bliss Rapids snail Taylorconcha serpenticola Threatened U.S.A. (ID) 57 FR 59244; 12/14/1992 Banbury Springs limpet Lanx sp. Endangered U.S.A. (ID) 57 FR 59244; 12/14/1992 PLANTS No common name Abutilon eremitopetalum Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 47694; 09/20/1991 `Ahinahina Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum Threatened U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Kookoolau Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Kookoolau Bidens wiebkei Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Pua ala Brighamia rockii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Awikiwiki Canavalia molokaiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Oha wai Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Oha wai Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Oha wai Clermontia samuelii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Haha Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Haha Cyanea dunbarii (=C. dunbariae) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 61 FR 53137; 10/10/1996 Haha Cyanea glabra Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Haha Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Haha Cyanea lobata Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Haha Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (=C. gibsonii) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 47694; 09/20/1991 Haha Cyanea magnicalyx Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 77 FR 34464; 06/11/2012 Haha Cyanea mannii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Haha Cyanea mceldowneyi Threatened U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Haha Cyanea procera Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Haiwale Cyrtandra munroi Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Naenae Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens Endangered U.S.A. (OR) 65 FR 3875; 01/25/2000 Nohoanu Geranium arboreum Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20592; 05/13/1992 Nohoanu Geranium multiflorum Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 No common name Gouania hillebrandii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 32937; 06/27/1994 Pilo Hedyotis mannii (=Kadua laxiflora) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Kopa Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (=Kadua cordata ssp. remyi) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Kokio keokeo Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Cook's koki`o Kokia cookei Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 44 FR 62470; 10/30/1979 Kamakahala Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Kamakahala Labordia triflora Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Kincaid's lupine Lupinus sulfureus ssp. kincaidii Threatened U.S.A. (OR, WA) 65 FR 3875; 01/25/2000 No common name Lysimachia lydgatei Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 No common name Lysimachia maxima Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 61 FR 53137; 10/10/1996 Nehe Lipochaeta kamolensis (=Melanthera kamolensis) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Alani Melicope adscendens Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 62352; 12/05/1994 Alani Melicope balloui Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 62352; 12/05/1994 Alani Melicope knudsenii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 9327; 02/25/1994 Alani Melicope mucronulata Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 Alani Melicope munroi Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 64 FR 48307; 09/02/1999 Alani Melicope ovalis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 62352; 12/05/1994 No common name Neraudia sericea Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 56350; 11/10/1994 No common name Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 47694; 09/20/1991 No common name Phyllostegia hispida Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 74 FR 11327; 03/17/2009 No common name Phyllostegia mannii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Rough popcornflower Plagiobothrys hirtus Endangered U.S.A. (OR) 65 FR 3866; 01/25/2000 Loulu Pritchardia munroi Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 61 FR 43184; 08/21/1996 Maui remya Remya mauiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 1454; 01/14/1991 Lanai sandalwood or iliahi Santalum haleakalae var. lanaiense (=S. freycinetianum var. lanaiense) Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 78 FR 32013; 05/28/2013 No common name Schiedea haleakalensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 20787; 05/15/1992 No common name Schiedea lydgatei Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 No common name Schiedea sarmentosa Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 61 FR 53137; 10/10/1996 No common name Silene alexandri Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Spalding's catchfly Silene spaldingii Threatened U.S.A. (ID, MT, OR, WA) 66 FR 51597; 10/10/2001 No common name Stenogyne bifida Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 Pamakani Tetramolopium capillare Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 59 FR 49863; 09/30/1994 No common name Tetramolopium remyi Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 47694; 09/20/1991 No common name Tetramolopium rockii Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 57 FR 46325; 10/08/1992 No common name Viola lanaiensis Endangered U.S.A. (HI) 56 FR 47694; 09/20/1991
    Request for New Information

    To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

    If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, or Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.

    Completed and Active Reviews

    A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Pacific Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/5year.html.

    Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 7, 2015. Richard R. Hannan, Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-02895 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT of THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-ES-2015-N144]; [FF09E42000 156 FXES11130900000] Endangered Species; Issuance of Permits AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of issuance of permits.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act). With some exceptions, the Act prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activity. We provide this list for the convenience of the public as a summary of our permit issuances for the calendar year 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    See the contact information in the Permits Issued section.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We have issued the following permits to conduct activities with endangered and threatened species in response to recovery permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These permits were issued between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Each permit was issued only after we determined that it was applied for in good faith, that granting the permit would not be to the disadvantage of the listed species, that the proposed activities were for scientific research or would benefit the recovery or the enhancement of survival of the species, and that the terms and conditions of the permits were consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in the Act.

    Permits Issued Region 1 (Pacific Region: Hawaii and Other Pacific Islands, Idaho, Oregon (except for Klamath Basin), and Washington)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 1. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 503-231-6131.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 38768B 01/06/15 Micronesian Environmental Services. 017352 01/16/15 Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands. 132842 01/23/15 Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County. 233288 01/23/15 ICF Jones and Stokes, Inc. 826600 02/09/15 Hadfield, Michael G. 53931B 02/10/15 City of Bellingham. 060179 03/05/15 Zoological Society of San Diego. 017352 03/20/15 Commonwealth of The Northern Mariana Islands. 45531B 03/20/15 Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 49208B 03/20/15 Summers, Tammy M. 003483 03/25/15 U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline. 27877B 04/08/15 Haan, Nathan L. 56731B 04/08/15 AMEC Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. 014798 04/14/15 Coeur d'Alene Tribe. 068143 04/30/15 Eastern Washington University. 844468 04/30/15 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 014497 05/07/15 Haleakala National Park. 42195A 05/07/15 U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Base Guam. 08964A 05/07/15 Ross, Dana N. 39372B 05/08/15 Institute For Natural Resources, Portland State University. 136964 05/21/15 Washington Department of Natural Resources. 44312A 05/27/15 Mount Rainier National Park. 011423 05/27/15 Washington Department of Ecology. 49790B 06/08/15 U.S. Geological Survey. 005885 06/11/15 Seattle City Light. 56898B 06/15/15 Bowerman, William J. 58586B 06/15/15 Deschutes National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. 60820B 06/15/15 Willamette National Forest. 58481B 06/15/15 Biota Pacific Environmental Sciences. 39390B 06/24/15 Ecological Land Services, Inc. 64608B 06/24/15 Washington Department of Natural Resources. 64791B 07/02/15 Island County Department of Natural Resources. 63382B 07/15/15 Nyman, Stephen. 702631 07/16/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 49790B 07/16/15 U.S. Geological Survey. 39991B 08/03/15 University of Washington Botanic Gardens. 802107 08/05/15 Baird, Patricia A. 72492B 08/20/15 Electron Hydro, LLC. 56898B 08/24/15 Bowerman, William J. 041023 09/02/15 Department of the Army. 844489 09/10/15 Deschutes National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. 71541A 09/28/15 Confederated Tribes of The Warm Springs Reservation. 67121B 10/22/15 Pacific Rim Conservation. 192390 11/12/15 James, Paul W. 99618A 12/02/15 Rock, Dennis F. 043628 12/17/15 Institute For Applied Ecology. Region 2 (Southwest Region: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 2. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 505-248-6665.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 822908 01/12/15 Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. 150490 01/20/15 Maresh, John P. 60125 01/20/15 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. 053085 01/23/15 Bureau of Reclamation—Boulder City. 836329 02/04/15 Blanton and Associates. 188015 02/05/15 Pueblo of Santa Ana—Natural Resources. 52821B 02/05/15 Conley, Dillan W. 48908B 02/05/15 Mickinney, Jeremiah C. 89061A 02/06/15 Arizona State University School of Life Sciences. 52824B 02/06/15 Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District. 51928B 02/16/15 Moczygemba, Kevin J. 802211 02/16/15 Texas State University—San Marcos. 841353 02/24/15 Bowman Consulting Group, Ltd. 48572B 03/02/15 Cienega Environmental, Inc. 44547B 03/02/15 Dixon, Thomas P. 144755 03/02/15 Reagan Smith Energy Solutions, Inc. 58946B 03/02/15 Gsi Engineering, Llc. 58947B 03/02/15 Ck Associates, Llc. 51930B 03/02/15 Rizzo, Alex K. 800611 03/02/15 Swca Environmental Consultants, San Antonio. 063395 03/04/15 Jenks Aquarium Authority. 44545B 03/04/15 Horvath, Michael J. 233205 03/04/15 Bonn, Thomas D. 050706 03/13/15 Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 045236 03/13/15 SWCA Environmental Consultants. 833851 03/16/15 City of Austin—Watershed Protection Department. 25609A 03/16/15 The Peregrine Fund. 37418B 03/16/15 Braown and Gay Engineers, Inc. 195248 03/16/15 Morrison, Michael L. 35147A 03/20/15 Newstead, David J. 798920 03/23/15 City of Austin. 040341 03/23/15 Larsen, William Charles. 835139 03/23/15 Hawks Aloft, Inc. 830213 03/24/15 Eco Plan Associates, Inc. 71870A 03/25/15 Western Area Power Administration. 123070 03/27/15 Morales, Susana M. 08548B 03/27/15 USGS- Sonoran Desert Research Station. 776123 03/31/15 Texas A and M University—Galveston. 819541 03/31/15 Ecosystem Management, Inc. 842565 03/31/15 Cibola National Forest. 97824A 03/31/15 Smith Environmental Research and Consulting House. 814933 04/03/15 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 038055 04/03/15 University of New Mexico. 082496 04/03/15 Joint Base San Antonio—Natural Resources. 62878B 04/03/15 Hammerhead Resources, Llc. 28891A 04/06/15 Tristan, Timothy. 51929B 04/06/15 Clark, Timothy G. 24623A 04/07/15 Miller Park Zoo. 43777A 04/10/15 Sea Life US, Llc. 055419 04/15/15 Turner Biological Consulting, Llc. 37946B 04/20/15 Wright, Marjorie A. 001623 04/22/15 American Southwest Ichthyological Researchers. 35147A 04/22/15 Newstead, David J. 52820B 04/22/15 Harmon, Vonceil. 48437B 04/22/15 Jones, Jann S. 48847A 04/23/15 Texas A and M University At Galveston. 146407 04/24/15 Belaire Environmental, Inc. (BEI). 205717 04/24/15 Collins, Valerie M. 48435B 04/30/15 Dickinson, Kevin S. 58243B 05/04/15 Hill , Austin E. 168688 05/04/15 Itz, Sarah N. 35619A 05/04/15 Miller, Marvin J. 61040B 05/04/15 Shenandoah Deer Services Llc. 48766A 05/06/15 Grabowski, Timothy B. 35163A 05/06/15 Grzybowski, Joseph A. 091551 05/06/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 61124B 05/11/15 Creighton, J. Curtis. 58781A 05/12/15 University of Arizona. 064085 05/15/15 Rodden, Iris E. 091552 05/18/15 Homesley, Zane N. 195191 05/18/15 Baer Engineering and Environmental Consulting, Inc. 829995 05/18/15 Dallas Zoo and Aquarium. 051819 05/19/15 Fort Worth Zoological Park. 837751 05/22/15 Bureau of Reclamation. Phoenix. 66055A 05/22/15 The Navajo Nation. 52561B 05/22/15 Teague, Trevor N. 52562B 05/22/15 Turner, Andrew J.P. 082497 05/27/15 Huggins Enterprises, Llc. 54802B 05/28/15 Phillips-Schaap, Megan Elizabeth. 27791B 05/29/15 National Park Service—Montezuma Castle and Tuzigoot Monuments. 037118 05/29/15 Carroll, Scott E. 819475 05/29/15 Bureau of Reclamation. 082498 05/29/15 National Park Service—Flagstaff Area National Monuments. 043399 06/05/15 Eagle Environmental Consulting, Inc. 42737A 06/05/15 Sevenecoten, Llc. 64619B 06/05/15 Wood, Dustin A. 08548B 06/05/15 USGS—Sonoran Desert Research Station. 830213 06/10/15 Eco Plan Associates, Inc. 43324B 06/10/15 Goode, Matthew J. 63200B 06/10/15 Audubon Arizona. 146501 06/12/15 Oklahoma Conservation Commission. 000948 06/15/15 Western New Mexico University. 819477 06/15/15 Parametrix. 61045B 06/15/15 Scott, Jennifer D. 23162B 06/18/15 Herman, Eric L. 207863 06/19/15 AECOM. 819458 06/19/15 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 826091 06/19/15 Bureau of Land Management—Phoenix. 30430B 06/22/15 University of Houston—Clear Lake. 52816B 06/26/15 Davis, David H. 028605 06/26/15 SWCA Environmental Consultants—Flagstaff. 63522B 07/02/15 Laney Environmental Consulting. 61048B 07/02/15 Veteran Environmental, Llc. 63523B 07/02/15 Medina Consulting Company, Inc. 023643 07/03/15 Us Army, III Corps and Fort Hood. 236730 07/03/15 Bonner, Timothy H. 023159 07/06/15 Sora. 011464 07/06/15 Vaughn, Caryn C. 41814B 07/06/15 Tucson Audubon Society. 828830 07/10/15 Bureau of Land Management—Tucson Field Office. 44542B 07/10/15 Olsson Associates. 821577 07/10/15 Arizona Game and Fish Department. 170625 07/10/15 Howard, Daniel R. 066229 07/15/15 Whitenton Group, Inc. Environmental Consultants. 37484A 07/15/15 Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge. 169770 07/17/15 New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. 833866 07/17/15 Texas Forest Service. 43746A 07/20/15 Northern Arizona University. 63202B 07/20/15 Chambers, Carol L. 006655 07/20/15 Logan Simpson Design, Inc. 33863A 07/20/15 Blackburn, Deborah K. 820730 07/21/15 New Mexico Energy, Minerals And Natural Resources Department. 053839 07/21/15 Sme Environmental Consultants. 004439 07/21/15 Albuquerque Biological Park. 07059A 07/21/15 Marsh, Paul C. 64968A 07/21/15 Apex Companies, Llc. 022190 07/23/15 Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. 206016 07/24/15 Middick, Andrew R. 35438B 08/07/15 Bradley, Anne F. 50643B 08/07/15 Weaver, Vaughn D. 38748A 08/12/15 Carlotta Copper Company. 189566 08/12/15 Geick, Monica. 828640 08/19/15 Harris Environmental Group. 42739A 08/20/15 Sea Life Arizona. 71618A 08/26/15 Museum of Southwestern Biology—UNM Herbarium. 821356 08/26/15 Grand Canyon Monitoring And Research Center, USGS. 67919B 09/01/15 Kartye Land Management Llc. 08394B 09/18/15 U.S. Forest Service. 73966B 09/18/15 Arizona State Parks. 72065A 09/18/15 Prescott National Forest. 051832 09/18/15 Phoenix Zoo. 69881B 09/18/15 Larsen, Brendan B. 88519A 09/21/15 U.S. Forest Service. 60111B 09/21/15 Robb, Natalie J. 67917B 09/23/15 Gabor, Caitlin R. 822998 09/25/15 U.S. Forest Service. 797127 09/25/15 U.S. Army COE, Albuquerque. 800923 09/25/15 University of Arizona. 73319B 09/25/15 Thompson, Brent E. 64622B 09/28/15 Granillo, Kathy A. 64624B 09/28/15 Johnson, Cassidy B. 78097B 10/01/15 Aslan, Clare E. 73330B 10/01/15 Hargrove, Phillip W. 819528 10/06/15 New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. 63195B 10/06/15 Stoner, Kathryn E. 64311A 10/06/15 Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. 59580A 10/09/15 Rocky Mountain Ecology. 834782 10/15/15 Westland Resources, Inc. 819473 10/20/15 Grand Canyon National Park. 815409 10/23/15 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 037780 10/30/15 Texas Westmoreland Coal Company. 97830A 11/02/15 USFWS—Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge. 103480 11/02/15 Campbell, Carianne S. 842583 11/02/15 La Tierra Environmental Consulting. 30425B 11/02/15 Hagyari, David K. 068189 11/02/15 Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. 58490B 11/02/15 Krebbs, Karen. 73321B 11/10/15 Paroz, Yvette M. 72324B 11/10/15 Dill, Lauren A. 43754A 11/12/15 Turner Endangered Species Fund. 78960A 11/13/15 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 212451 11/16/15 Ortiz, Peter R. 181762 11/23/15 Sea Turtle, Inc. 053104 11/24/15 ACI Group, Llc. 676811 11/24/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 43322B 11/25/15 Nowak, Erika M. 840214 12/04/15 Luminant Power. 65846A 12/04/15 Saguaro National Park. 73317B 12/18/15 Britt, Charles R. Region 3 (Midwest Region: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 3. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 612-713-5343.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 19777A 01/15/15 Volk Field-CRTC-ANG. 02560A 05/01/15 Carter, Timothy C. 35859B 06/09/15 Mills, Charles E. 64238B 06/12/15 Karsk, Jocelyn. 697830 06/15/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 07358A 06/17/15 Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 64079B 06/17/15 Minnesota Zoological Garden. 64073B 06/19/15 Ecological and GIS Services. 64077B 06/19/15 Krych, Scott A. 21829B 06/22/15 Bishop-Boros, Larisa J. 64070B 07/02/15 SWCA, Inc. 31055B 07/13/15 Armstrong, Kory. 89557A 07/15/15 TRC Companies, Inc. 82666A 07/15/15 Boyles, Justin G. 64235B 07/16/15 O'Leary, William G. 151109 07/17/15 Ohio Division of Wildlife. 64074B 07/27/15 Zeyzus, Julie A. 71508B 08/14/15 Weber, Justine E. 06841A 09/29/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 60257B 10/01/15 Missouri Department of Conservation. 11035A 10/05/15 Vande Kopple, Robert J. 06846A 10/07/15 Smithsonian Institution. 38860A 10/08/15 Garvon, Jason M. 64082B 10/08/15 Beckman, Daniel W. 71516B 10/08/15 Olsson Associates. 72089B 10/09/15 Michigan Technological University. 06801A 10/29/15 Pittsburgh Wildlife and Environmental, Inc. 64081B 10/30/15 Hoyt, Joseph R. 809630 11/03/15 Kurta, Allen. 38769A 11/06/15 Bradley, Sarah A. 38842A 11/06/15 Sanders Environmental Inc. 38866A 11/06/15 U.S. Geological Survey. 144832 11/16/15 Detroit Zoological Society. 74488B 11/18/15 Missouri Cooperative Research Unit. 60133B 12/04/15 University of Minnesota. 105320 12/08/15 Tragus Environmental Consulting, Inc. 120231 12/08/15 Timpone, John C. 64078B 12/09/15 Toledo Zoological Zoo. 64237B 12/22/15 York-Harris, Megan B. 805269 12/23/15 Soluk, Daniel A. 06845A 12/31/15 Lochmueller Group. 35518B 12/31/15 Sheets, Jeremy J. 30970B 12/31/15 Miller, Jeffrey C. 151107 12/31/15 Redwing Ecological Services, Inc. 60958A 12/31/15 Bat Calls Identification, Inc. 62286A 12/31/15 Whittle, Jason B. Region 4 (Southeast Region: States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and the Virgin Islands of the United States)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 4. For more information about any of the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 404-679-7097.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 91373A 01/28/15 Miller, Jonathan M. 79580A 01/28/15 Butler, Jason M. 139474 01/28/15 Ftn Associates, Ltd. 206784 01/30/15 Bailey, William E. 24343B 01/30/15 EGIS, Inc. 37524B 02/02/15 The Florida Aquarium. 94669A 02/02/15 Toledo Zoological Gardens. 02200B 02/09/15 Atlanta Botanical Garden. 37490B 02/10/15 Littrell, Melissa Toncray. 142294 02/18/15 Holimon, William (Bill) C. 48049B 02/24/15 Cunningham, Kathryn A. 81756A 03/03/15 Robinson, Jason B. 37900B 03/03/15 Lauerman, Sarah A. 48576B 03/03/15 Wood, Carson D. 237549 03/03/15 The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Chapter. 59943B 03/03/15 Boles, Tricia Fay. 23583B 03/06/15 Ober, Holly K. 077175 03/06/15 Best, Troy L. 48579B 03/06/15 Ecological Solution Inc. 37663B 03/06/15 Ijames, Rebecca D. 125620 03/06/15 Burns and Mcdonnell Engineering Company, Inc. 102418 03/09/15 Florida Army National Guard. 119937 03/09/15 Loeb, Susan C. 94704A 03/25/15 Brown, Dorothy C. 37666B 03/30/15 Allen, Jessica L. 096554 04/01/15 Biological Systems Consultant, Inc. 62857B 04/02/15 Bear, Donna L. 22570A 04/03/15 Nashville Zoo. 697819 04/08/15 Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4. 066980 04/09/15 J.W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Ichauway Inc. 63633A 04/09/15 Biodiversity Research Institute. 27608B 04/13/15 Mcgehee Engineering Corporation. 37492B 04/13/15 Grow, Anthony Christopher. 48582B 04/14/15 Romano, Kim A. 51145B 04/15/15 Ashton, Kyle G. 63888B 04/16/15 Museum of Science Inc. 48386B 04/20/15 Department of Defense. 102292 04/20/15 Jackson, Jeremy L. 56749B 04/20/15 Moore, Patrick R. 53149B 04/20/15 Otto, Hans W. 083085 04/21/15 Menges, Eric S. 070584 05/01/15 Gumbert, Mark W. 18825B 05/13/15 Savidge, Timothy W. 070796 05/13/15 Apogee Environmental Consultants. 63349B 06/01/15 Lindeman, Peter V. 129703 06/11/15 Hmb Professional Engineers, Inc. 051429 06/15/15 Mosaic Fertilizer, Llc. 100012 06/16/15 Share The Beach. 41910B 06/17/15 Rush, Scott A. 54578B 06/18/15 Frazer, Mary E. 78919A 06/23/15 East Coast Zoological Society. 100070 06/24/15 USDA Forest Service—Bankhead Ranger District. 061069 06/29/15 Smith, Mark R. 816862 07/01/15 Settles, Joseph. 38906B 07/28/15 National Parks Service. 075913 08/10/15 Risch, Thomas S. 56430B 08/11/15 Hootman, Jonathan R. 60238B 08/21/15 Georgia Museum of Natural History. 13844A 08/21/15 Miller, Anthony T. 64232B 08/25/15 Young, Joshua R. 38519A 08/26/15 Cardno Entrix. 108584 09/01/15 Nehus, Tim J. 59798B 09/03/15 Daguna Consulting Llc. 237545 11/04/15 Lavoie, Michael J. 37219B 11/06/15 Perry, Roger W. 32397A 11/12/15 Godwin, James C. 21809A 11/19/15 Folk, Monica L. 087176 11/23/15 Eisenhour, David J. 237535 11/27/15 Bok Tower Gardens. 206741 11/30/15 Metro Water Services. 66445B 12/01/15 Fowler, Angelina D. 049654 12/14/15 Gordon, William D. 37498B 12/14/15 Everglades Research and Education Center. 117769 12/18/15 Schoech, Stephan J. Region 5 (Northeast Region: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 5. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or telephone 703-358-2402.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 86197B 03/17/15 Weldon, Prescott. 86343B 03/24/15 Carlin, John. 86345B 04/04/15 Knorr, David. 86357B 04/06/15 Feller, Daniel J. 86358B 07/24/15 Zydlewski, Joseph D. 86357B 09/03/15 Feller, Daniel J. 86359B 09/15/15 Riexinger, Patricia. 86361B 10/02/15 Winslow, Kyle. 86362B 10/16/15 Galbraith, Heather. Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 6. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 719-628-2670.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 25496B 01/23/15 Marette, Brandon B. 091149 02/05/15 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 49168B 03/09/15 Ortega, Catherine P. 00670A 03/09/15 South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. 103272 03/16/15 Virginia Polytechnic Institute. 45150 05/14/15 Oklahoma State University. 060668 05/01/15 Bellini Environmental Consulting. 43046A 05/27/15 Mammoliti, Kirk M. 56902B 05/27/15 Bureau of Reclamation. 227446 05/27/15 Clifton Sanitation District. 704930 05/28/15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 059369 06/01/15 Colorado State University. 63418B 06/01/15 US Forest Service, Superior Ranger District. 232905 06/15/15 Como Park Zoo and Conservatory. 207946 06/15/15 Bureau of Reclamation. 54237 07/01/15 USDA Forest Service—Rocky Mountain Region. 66969B 07/01/15 Cemml—Colorado State University. 183430 07/13/15 Headwaters Corporation. 66969B 07/23/15 Colorado State University. 54237 07/23/15 USDA Forest Service. 46971A 07/27/15 USDA Forest Service. 01741B 07/28/15 Colorado Department of Transportation. 64613B 08/01/15 Phillips, Andrew L. 66505B 08/01/15 Wenck Associates. 50643B 08/07/15 Weaver, Vaughn D. 161444 08/10/15 California Academy of Sciences. 237960 08/10/15 Power Engineers. 66510B 09/01/15 North Dakota State University. 12513A 09/08/15 University of Colorado—Denver. 65809B 09/01/15 Dankert, Neil E. 07858A 09/09/15 Utah State University. 66521B 09/09/15 Western Biology, Llc. 106387 10/05/15 US Forest Service, Bridger-Teton National Forest. 053925 10/13/15 National Park Service. 65611B 10/22/15 Skadsen, Dennis. 66113B 10/14/15 Reiser, Jim M. Region 7 (Alaska Region)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 7. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 907-786-3472.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 042711 05/23/15 Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. 012155 06/22/15 ABR, Inc. Region 8 (Pacific Southwest Region: California, Nevada, and Klamath Basin Portion of Oregon)

    The following permits were applied for and issued in Region 8. For more information about any the following permits, contact the Recovery Permit Coordinator, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 760-431-9440.

    Permit No. Date issued Applicant name 006559 01/03/15 Powell, Dale A. 237086 01/07/15 Orr, Bruce K. 43944A 01/21/15 Spies, Brenton T. 797267 01/30/15 Triple Hs, Incorporated. 35387A 01/30/15 Glenn, Danielle C. 004234 01/30/15 California Department of Parks and Recreation. 094893 01/30/15 Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. 806679 01/30/15 Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Llc. 181738 01/30/15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 100006 01/30/15 Freeman Biological. 094318 02/13/15 Vinje, Jessica S. 20186A 02/13/15 Huffman, Garrett R. 031913 02/13/15 Ball, Morgan L. 41613B 02/13/15 Stewart, Mitch W. 839896 02/13/15 Reed, Samuel J. 827494 02/13/15 Riefner, Rick E. 72044A 02/13/15 Demetropoulos, Carl L. 203081 02/13/15 Labonte, John P. 032713 02/13/15 California Department of Transportation. 110382 02/13/15 Edens, Ava R. 13636B 02/13/15 Hoffman, Michaela L. 41184B 02/13/15 Hyland, Mason D. 237061 02/13/15 Chase, Daniel A. 41182B 02/13/15 Pope, Karen L. 89998A 02/27/15 Amalong, Matthew L. 104080 02/27/15 Sykes, Stephen A. 33292B 02/27/15 Tehama Environmental Solutions, Incorporated. 43937B 02/27/15 Sloan, Robert L. 41181B 02/27/15 Addison, Clayton K. 110094 02/27/15 Chapman, Todd A. 15544A 03/20/15 Beck, Christine L. 43642B 03/20/15 National Park Service—Redwood National Park. 41825B 03/20/15 Parker, Virgil T. 027422 <