Federal Register Vol. 81, No.50,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 50 (March 15, 2016)

Page Range13713-13966
FR Document

81_FR_50
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 13857 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 13787 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 13872 - Delegation of the Functions and Authorities of the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues to the Special Coordinator for Global Criminal JusticePDF
81 FR 13872 - Additional Designation of North Korean Entities Pursuant to Executive Order 13382PDF
81 FR 13781 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019PDF
81 FR 13815 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 13871 - Notice of Reopening of Public Comment Period: Re-Consideration Concerning the Scope of Authorizations in a Presidential Permit Issued to Plains LPG Services, L.P., in May 2014 for Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the United States and Canada Under the St. Clair RiverPDF
81 FR 13719 - Petition of the Aircraft Owner and Pilots Association (AOPA) To Amend FAA Policy Concerning Flying Club Operations at Federally Obligated AirportsPDF
81 FR 13813 - Agency Information Collection Activities: User FeesPDF
81 FR 13814 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Holders or Containers Which Enter the United States Duty FreePDF
81 FR 13763 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service LampsPDF
81 FR 13763 - Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans: Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support DocumentPDF
81 FR 13874 - Eighteenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (223) Internet Protocol Suite (IPS)PDF
81 FR 13790 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1139.11); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13779 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 13789 - Request for Nominations for the Mobile Sources Technical Review SubcommitteePDF
81 FR 13873 - Wisconsin Chicago Link Ltd.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Cook County, Ill.PDF
81 FR 13779 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13849 - License Amendment Requests for Changes to Emergency Response Organization Staffing and AugmentationPDF
81 FR 13820 - Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Korea, Mexico, and Turkey; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 13721 - Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ethnological Materials From the Republic of ColombiaPDF
81 FR 13771 - Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 13832 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers HandbookPDF
81 FR 13791 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13817 - HEARTH Act Approval of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community RegulationsPDF
81 FR 13806 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13834 - Meetings of Humanities PanelPDF
81 FR 13777 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Eel FisheryPDF
81 FR 13747 - NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 13775 - SAW-SARC 61 Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 13776 - SAW-SARC 62 Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 13771 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 13744 - Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various CategoriesPDF
81 FR 13827 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection, Application for Procurement Quota for a Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine, DEA Form 250PDF
81 FR 13830 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Limited Permittee Transaction Report (ATF Form 5400.4)PDF
81 FR 13831 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application To Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles-ATF Form 4587 (5330.4)PDF
81 FR 13825 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles, ATF Form 6, Part II (5330.3B)PDF
81 FR 13826 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Restoration of Firearms PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 13828 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Application for Individual Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class of Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine DEA Form 189PDF
81 FR 13827 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Certification of Qualifying State Relief From Disabilities Program (ATF Form 3210.12)PDF
81 FR 13831 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Appeals of Background ChecksPDF
81 FR 13829 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Stolen or Lost ATF Forms 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosive CouponPDF
81 FR 13829 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees, LimitedPDF
81 FR 13824 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy (ATF F 6330.1.)PDF
81 FR 13824 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Tracing Center Trace Request (ATF F 3312.1)PDF
81 FR 13818 - Proposed Information Collection; Reporting and Recordkeeping for Snowcoaches and Snowmobiles, Yellowstone National ParkPDF
81 FR 13775 - U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 13772 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 13816 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA Lender Approval, Annual Renewal, Periodic Updates and Required Reports by FHA-Approved LendersPDF
81 FR 13791 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 13793 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 13794 - Proposed Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Polio and Varicella VaccinesPDF
81 FR 13784 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 13784 - Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 13782 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13788 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Sunrise Expansion ProjectPDF
81 FR 13783 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 13812 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13772 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery Actions in Relation to the Southeastern United States Shrimp Fishery and To Conduct Public Scoping MeetingsPDF
81 FR 13874 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping RequirementsPDF
81 FR 13778 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13833 - Office of Federal Procurement Policy; Determination of Statutory Formula Benchmark Compensation Amount for Certain Executives and Contractor EmployeesPDF
81 FR 13823 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability ActPDF
81 FR 13835 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13794 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Tracking Network for PETNet, LivestockNet, and SampleNetPDF
81 FR 13869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Limit Mandatory Participation in Scheduled Functional and Performance Testing Under Regulation SCI to Only Those Primary Market Makers That Meet Specified CriteriaPDF
81 FR 13864 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Limit Mandatory Participation in Scheduled Functional and Performance Testing Under Regulation SCI to Only Those Primary Market Makers That Meet Specified CriteriaPDF
81 FR 13854 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares of the iShares iBonds Dec 2023 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2024 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, iShares iBonds Dec 2025 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF, and iShares iBonds Dec 2026 AMT-Free Muni Bond ETF of the iShares U.S. ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 13851 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 98 To Provide That When Designated Market Makers Enter Interest for the Purpose of Facilitating the Execution of Customer Orders, Such Orders Would Not Be Required To Be Designated as DMM InterestPDF
81 FR 13857 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt and Amend Rules To Permit the Exchange To Initiate CHX SNAP SMPDF
81 FR 13861 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
81 FR 13866 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees as they Apply to the Equity Options Platform.PDF
81 FR 13855 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions From Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to PowerShares DWA Tactical Multi-Asset Income Portfolio Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation MPDF
81 FR 13796 - Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 13822 - Phosphor Copper From Korea; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigation and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationPDF
81 FR 13850 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 13801 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic Submission of Medical Device Registration and ListingPDF
81 FR 13877 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8594PDF
81 FR 13876 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 13878 - Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 13876 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects CommitteePDF
81 FR 13880 - Amended Notification of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee March 15, 2016, Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 13877 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 13879 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 13819 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 13823 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Request for Registration Under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962PDF
81 FR 13742 - Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying BenefitsPDF
81 FR 13878 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 13876 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Ruling 2000-35PDF
81 FR 13805 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 13811 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 13811 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 13812 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 13812 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 13811 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 13810 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 13878 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 3468PDF
81 FR 13879 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project CommitteePDF
81 FR 13804 - Final Results of Study of Workload Volume and Full Costs Associated With Review of Biosimilar Biological Product ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 13871 - Maryland Disaster #MD-00032PDF
81 FR 13798 - Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services To Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 13797 - Determination That KENALOG (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Lotion and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessPDF
81 FR 13803 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant FeedPDF
81 FR 13807 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
81 FR 13764 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop and Turboshaft EnginesPDF
81 FR 13714 - Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 13713 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 13769 - Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest RegulationsPDF
81 FR 13765 - School Boards for DoD Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS)PDF
81 FR 13917 - Train Crew StaffingPDF
81 FR 13717 - Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 13837 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 13747 - Amendments to the HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR)PDF
81 FR 13881 - National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement ProgramPDF
81 FR 13722 - Highway Safety Improvement ProgramPDF

Issue

81 50 Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Meetings: Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, 13771 2016-05799 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13778-13779 2016-05767 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Proposed Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Polio and Varicella Vaccines, 13794 2016-05776 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13779 2016-05814 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

PROPOSED RULES School Boards for DoD Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, 13765-13769 2016-05600 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 13779-13781 2016-05820
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2017-2019, 13781-13782 2016-05840 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Programs: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps, 13763 2016-05825 Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans; Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document, 13763-13764 2016-05824
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13790-13791 2016-05821 Requests for Nominations: Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee, 13789-13790 2016-05817 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes, 13717-13719 2016-05509 Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines, 13714-13716 2016-05702 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 13713-13714 2016-05701 Policy Statements: Flying Club Operations at Federally Obligated Airports, 13719-13721 2016-05833 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop and Turboshaft Engines, 13764-13765 2016-05704 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee Internet Protocol Suite, 13874 2016-05822 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13782-13786 2016-05773 2016-05775 Combined Filings, 13783-13784 2016-05771 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC; Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project, 13788-13789 2016-05772 License Applications: Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC, 13784 2016-05774 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13787-13788 2016-05869 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration RULES Highway Safety Improvement Program, 13722-13742 2016-05190 Highway Safety Improvement Program: National Performance Management Measures, 13882-13916 2016-05202 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Train Crew Staffing, 13918-13966 2016-05553 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13791-13793 2016-05808 Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 13793-13794 2016-05777 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 13791 2016-05778 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations, 13769-13770 2016-05694 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Submission of Medical Device Registration and Listing, 13801-13802 2016-05744 Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed, 13803-13804 2016-05716 Tracking Network for PETNet, LivestockNet, and SampleNet, 13794-13796 2016-05757 Determinations that Products Were Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness: KENALOG (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Lotion and Other Drug Products, 13797-13798 2016-05717 Final Results of Study of Workload Volume and Full Costs Associated With Review of Biosimilar Biological Product Applications, 13804-13805 2016-05720 Guidance: Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion, 13798-13801 2016-05718 Meetings: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 13796-13797 2016-05748 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13806-13807 2016-05806
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13805-13806 2016-05730 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Federal Acquisition Regulations, 13747-13762 2016-05212 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FHA Lender Approval, Annual Renewal, Periodic Updates and Required Reports by FHA-Approved Lenders, 13816-13817 2016-05779 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES HEARTH Act Approval of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Regulations, 13817-13818 2016-05807 Inspector General Health Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department NOTICES Statements of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 13807-13810 2016-05714 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13876-13879 2016-05722 2016-05731 2016-05732 2016-05742 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Notices and Correspondence Project Committee, 13879 2016-05736 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Special Projects Committee, 13876 2016-05739 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee, 13876 2016-05741 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee, 13878 2016-05740 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee, 13877 2016-05737 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line Project Committee, 13879-13880 2016-05721 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China, 13771-13772 2016-05810 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness, 13772 2016-05780 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, 13820-13822 2016-05812 Phosphor Copper from Korea, 13822-13823 2016-05746 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Appeals of Background Checks, 13831 2016-05789 Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles, 13825-13826 2016-05793 Application for Individual Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class of Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine, 13828-13829 2016-05791 Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy, 13824 2016-05786 Application for Procurement Quota for a Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine, 13827-13828 2016-05796 Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges, 13826 2016-05792 Application to Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles, 13831-13832 2016-05794 Certification of Qualifying State Relief from Disabilities Program, 13827 2016-05790 Limited Permittee Transaction Report, 13830-13831 2016-05795 National Tracing Center Trace Request, 13824-13825 2016-05785 Report of Stolen or Lost ATF Forms 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosive Coupon, 13829 2016-05788 Request for Registration under the Gambling Devices Act, 13823 2016-05734 Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees, Limited, 13829-13830 2016-05787 Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 13823-13824 2016-05765 Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Handbook, 13832-13833 2016-05809 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Determination of Statutory Formula Benchmark Compensation Amount for Certain Executives and Contractor Employees, 13833-13834 2016-05766 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplements; Correction, 13747 2016-05803 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Humanities Panel, 13834-13835 2016-05805 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13874-13876 2016-05768 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 13810-13812 2016-05724 2016-05725 2016-05726 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 13811-13812 2016-05728 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 13812 2016-05727 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 13811 2016-05729 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions: American Eel Fishery, 13777-13778 2016-05804 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery Actions in Relation to the Southeastern United States Shrimp Fishery; Scoping Meetings, 13772-13774 2016-05769 Meetings: Stock Assessment Workshop -- Stock Assessment Review Committee, 13775-13777 2016-05800 2016-05801 U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System Advisory Committee, 13775-13776 2016-05782 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Reporting and Recordkeeping for Snowcoaches and Snowmobiles, Yellowstone National Park, 13818-13819 2016-05783 National Register of Historic Places; Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 13819-13820 2016-05735 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13835-13836 2016-05760 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 13837-13849 2016-05470 License Amendment Requests: Changes to Emergency Response Organization Staffing and Augmentation, 13849-13850 2016-05813 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits, 13742-13744 2016-05733 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 13850 2016-05745 Saint Lawrence Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation RULES Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories, 13744-13747 2016-05798 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Limited Exemptions from Exchange Act Rules, 13855-13857 2016-05749 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 13857 2016-05879 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc., 13861-13864 2016-05751 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc., 13866-13869 2016-05750 BATS Exchange, Inc., 13854-13855 2016-05754 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 13857-13861 2016-05752 International Securities Exchange, 13869-13871 2016-05756 ISE Gemini, LLC, 13864-13866 2016-05755 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 13851-13854 2016-05753 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Maryland, 13871 2016-05719 State Department State Department NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 13872-13873 2016-05847 Delegations of Authority: Functions and Authorities of the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues to the Special Coordinator for Global Criminal Justice, 13872 2016-05849 Presidential Permits: Plains LPG Services, LP, in May 2014 for Existing Pipeline Facilities on the Border of the U.S. and Canada under the St. Clair River; Reconsideration, 13871-13872 2016-05836 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 13812-13813 2016-05770 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Wisconsin Chicago Link, Ltd., Cook County, IL, 13873 2016-05815 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

See

United States Mint

RULES Import Restrictions on Certain Archaeological and Ethnological Materials from the Republic of Colombia, 13721-13722 2016-05811
U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Travel Document, 13815-13816 2016-05839 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Import Restrictions on Certain Archaeological and Ethnological Materials from the Republic of Colombia, 13721-13722 2016-05811 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Holders or Containers Which Enter the United States Duty Free, 13814-13815 2016-05827 User Fees, 13813-13814 2016-05829 U.S. Mint United States Mint NOTICES Meetings: Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, 13880 2016-05738 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Federal Highway Administration, 13882-13916 2016-05202 Part III Transportation Department, Federal Railroad Administration, 13918-13966 2016-05553 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 50 Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-AD; Amendment 39-18407; AD 2016-04-13] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-04-03 that applies to certain Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines. AD 2015-04-03 required inspection of the sealing sleeve on the high-pressure/intermediate-pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal oil feed tube and removal of those sealing sleeves affected by AD 2015-04-03. This AD requires removal of either the affected sealing sleeve only or both the affected sealing sleeve and the oil feed tube. This AD was prompted by fractures of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 19, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0561.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-04-03, Amendment 39-18105 (80 FR 9380, February 23, 2015), (“AD 2015-04-03”). AD 2015-04-03 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2015 (80 FR 69625). The NPRM proposed to require removal of either the affected sealing sleeve only or both the affected sealing sleeve and the oil feed tube.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supports the NPRM (80 FR 69625, November 10, 2015).

Conclusion

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information Under1 CFR Part 51

RR has issued RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015 and RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-H754, including the Supplement, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2015. The Alert NMSB No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015, provides guidance on identification and replacement of the sealing sleeve, part number (P/N) FW15003. The SB No. RB.211-72-H754, including the Supplement, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2015, provides information on the replacement of the sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and oil feed tube, P/N FW14193, with a sealing sleeve, P/N KH28323 and oil feed tube, P/N KH28324. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 58 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1.2 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $5,850 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $345,216.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-04-03, Amendment 39-18105 (80 FR 9380, February 23, 2015) (“AD 2015-04-03”), and adding the following new AD: 2016-04-13 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18407; Docket No. FAA-2014-0561; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-12-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective April 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2015-04-03.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 turbofan engines, all serial numbers, except those engines:

(1) That have had Modification 72-H754 applied in production, or

(2) that have been modified in accordance with RR Service Bulletin (SB) No. RB.211-72-H754, including the Supplement, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2015 or initial issue dated October 1, 2014; or

(3) with sealing sleeve, part number (P/N) FW15003, with markings 102013, 112013, or 102013L.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by fractures of the high-pressure/intermediate pressure (HP/IP) turbine support internal oil feed tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HP/IP turbine support internal oil feed tube, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) If sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, is installed without markings 102013, 112013, or 102013L, or if the markings cannot be sufficiently identified, then within 1,600 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first:

(i) Remove the affected sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and replace it with a part eligible for installation. Use paragraph 3.A.(4)(b) of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015, to perform the part replacement, or,

(ii) Remove the affected sealing sleeve, P/N FW15003, and the oil feed tube, P/N FW14193, and replace with parts eligible for installation. Use paragraph 3.B. or 3.C., as appropriate, of RR SB No. RB.211-72-H754, including the Supplement, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2015, to perform the parts replacement.

(2) Reserved.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(g) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7770; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(2) Refer to MCAI, European Aviation Safety Agency, AD 2015-0105R1, dated August 18, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0561-0003.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AJ035, Revision 2, dated August 10, 2015.

(ii) RR Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-H754, including the Supplement, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2015.

(3) For RR service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 12, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05701 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-23-AD; Amendment 39-18425; AD 2016-05-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by reports of the installation of non-conforming honeycomb cartridges in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and stage 7 to 9 spool. This AD requires removal and replacement of the affected HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools and adjacent honeycomb cartridges. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 19, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10, phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; Web site: www.engineallianceportal.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3713.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain EA GP7270 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015 (80 FR 64373). The NPRM was prompted by reports of the installation of non-conforming honeycomb cartridges in the HPC adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and stage 7 to 9 spool. The NPRM proposed to require removal and replacement of the affected HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 and stage 7 to 9 spools and adjacent honeycomb cartridges. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed EA Service Bulletin (SB) EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015; and SB EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015. The SBs describe procedures for removal and replacement of the affected HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spools and HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spools and adjacent honeycomb cartridges. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (80 FR 64373, October 23, 2015)

A commenter supports the NPRM (80 FR 64373, October 23, 2015).

Request To Change Applicability

EA requested that we expand the applicability to include GP7272 and GP7277 turbofan engines models. EA stated that the AD applies to GP7272 and GP7277 turbofan engines ratings in addition to GP7270.

We disagree. No GP7272 or GP7277 turbofan engines have been delivered. New engines would be delivered in the corrected configuration and would not be impacted by this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change the Unsafe Condition Statement

EA requested that we change the unsafe condition statement to “We are issuing this AD to prevent a hazardous engine condition.” because no engine failures have occurred in the field due to non-conforming honeycomb cartridges.

We disagree. The unsafe condition describes the condition we are trying to prevent and is the justification for this AD. It does not describe what has occurred in the past. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change the Summary and Relevant Service Information Paragraphs

EA requested that we include “honeycomb cartridges” in the Summary and Relevant Service Information paragraphs to indicate that the honeycomb cartridges require replacement.

We agree because the proposed change more completely describes the requirements of this AD. We changed the Summary and Relevant Service Information paragraphs of this AD.

Request To Change the Relevant Service Information, Applicability, and Compliance Paragraphs

EA requested that we revise the Relevant Service Information, Applicability, and Compliance paragraphs of this AD to allow future revisions of the applicable Service Bulletins (SBs).

We disagree. We are only authorized to mandate use of SBs that we have reviewed and which are published. Since future revisions of SBs are not yet published, we are not authorized to mandate their use. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change the Compliance Paragraph

EA requested that we revise Compliance paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD to “Remove and replace the honeycomb cartridges on the HPC stage 5 vanes with a part eligible for installation.”

EA also requested that we revise Compliance paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to “Remove and replace the honeycomb cartridges on the HPC stage 6, stage 7, and stage 8 vanes with a part eligible for installation.”

We agree. We changed “remove” to “remove from service” and “seal” to “cartridges” and added “. . . with a part eligible for installation” in compliance paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) and (e)(2)(ii) of this AD.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously:

• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 64373) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 64373).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects zero engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-05-07 Engine Alliance: Amendment 39-18425; Docket No. FAA-2015-3713; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-23-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective April 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines with one or both of the following installed:

(1) A high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor stage 2 to 5 spool, part number (P/N) 382-104-807-0, with a serial number (S/N) listed in EA Service Bulletin (SB) EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015; or

(2) An HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool, P/N 2031M90G04, 2031M90G05, or 2031M90G07, with an S/N listed in EA SB EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of the installation of non-conforming honeycomb cartridges in the HPC adjacent to the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and stage 7 to 9 spool. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spools and stage 7 to 9 spools, which could lead to uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD or before accumulating 2,100 engine cycles since the last disassembly of the compressor module of the engine, whichever occurs later:

(1) For engines with an HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool, P/N 382-104-807-0, installed with an S/N listed in EA SB EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015, do the following:

(i) Remove from service the HPC rotor stage 2 to 5 spool and replace with a part eligible for installation.

(ii) Remove from service the honeycomb cartridges on the HPC stage 5 vanes and replace with parts eligible for installation.

(2) For engines with an HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool, P/N 2031M90G04, 2031M90G05, or 2031M90G07 installed with an S/N listed in EA SB EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015, do the following:

(i) Remove from service the HPC rotor stage 7 to 9 spool and replace with a part eligible for installation.

(ii) Remove from service the honeycomb cartridges on the HPC stage 6, stage 7, and stage 8 vanes and replace with parts eligible for installation.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

(g) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Kyle Gustafson, Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7183; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Engine Alliance Service Bulletin (SB) EAGP7-72-327, dated July 21, 2015.

(ii) Engine Alliance SB EAGP7-72-328, dated July 21, 2015.

(3) For Engine Alliance service information identified in this AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10, phone: 800-565-0140; email: [email protected]; Web site: www.engineallianceportal.com.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 26, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05702 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-036-AD; Amendment 39-18432; AD 2016-06-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding an airworthiness directive (AD) 2007-06-06 for B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective April 19, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-7777.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4159; fax: (816) 329-3047; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2015 (80 FR 80291), and proposed to supersede AD 2007-06-06, Amendment 39-14987 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

In 2005, occurrences were reported of finding cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads, Part Number (P/N) DU130-24.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, B-N Group issued Service Bulletin (SB) 310 to provide inspection and test instructions. Consequently, CAA UK issued AD G-2005-0034 (EASA approval 2005-6447) to require repetitive inspections and leak tests and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Subsequently, B-N Group published SB 310 issue 2, prompting EASA to issue AD 2006-0143 making reference to SB 310 at issue 2, while the publication of BNA SB 310 issue 3 prompted EASA AD 2006-0143R1, introducing BNA modification (mod) NB-M-1728 (new pitot/static pressure head not affected by the AD requirements) as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections and leak tests.

Since that AD was issued, operators have reported a number of premature failures of the affected P/N DU130-24 pitot-static probes.

Prompted by these reports, BNA issued SB 310 issue 4 to reduce the interval for the inspections and leak tests.

For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2006-0143R1, which is superseded, but requires those actions at reduced intervals.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-7777-0002.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 80291, December 24, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 80291, December 24, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Britten-Norman Service Bulletin Number SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections, and if necessary, replacement of the pitot/static pressure head. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD will affect 93 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $7,905, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $10,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-14987 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007) and adding the following new AD: 2016-06-01 B-N Group Ltd.: Amendment 39-18432; Docket No. FAA-2015-7777; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-036-AD. (a) Effective Date

This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective April 19, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2007-06-06, Amendment 39-14987 (72 FR 12557; March 16, 2007).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, BN2A MK. III-3 BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII, BN2A, BN2B, and BN2A MKIII (all models on TCDS A17EU and A29EU) airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 34: Navigation.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads. We are issuing this AD to correct cracks of the inner shell of certain pitot/static pressure heads for cracks; which could lead to incorrect readings on the pressure instrumentation, e.g. altimeters, vertical speed indicators (rate-of-climb) and airspeed indicators and possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD:

(1) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 19, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspect the pitot/static pressure head for cracks and/or separation and perform a leak test following the procedures in the action section of Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015.

(2) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: If, during an inspection or test required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD discrepancies are found, before further flight, replace the pitot/static pressure head with an airworthy part.

(3) For airplanes equipped with pitot/static pressure head part number (P/N) DU130-24: Corrections performed on airplanes as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(4) For airplanes not equipped with a pitot/static pressure head P/N DU130-24 on the effective date of this AD: After April 19, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), do not install a pitot/static pressure head P/N DU130-24.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4159; fax: (816) 329-3047; email: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

(h) Related Information

Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0199, dated October 7, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777. For service information related to this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Britten-Norman Service Bulletin SB 310, Issue 4, dated September 25, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited service information identified in this AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/.

(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7777.

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

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 7, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05509 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. FAA-2015-2022] Petition of the Aircraft Owner and Pilots Association (AOPA) To Amend FAA Policy Concerning Flying Club Operations at Federally Obligated Airports AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final policy.

SUMMARY:

The policy statement clarifies the FAA's policy interpretation regarding the operation of flying clubs at federally-obligated airports. Specifically, this policy statement amends FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Requirements, Section 10.6 Flying Clubs to allow the clubs to compensate instructors and mechanics who are club members for services rendered to the Club. This policy statement also amends the FAA's definition of flying clubs.

DATES:

This action becomes effective April 4, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Miguel Vasconcelos, Airport Compliance Division, ACO-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3085; facsimile: (202) 267-4620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction and Background

On April 3, 2015, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Senior Vice President for Government Affairs & Advocacy wrote to the FAA's Director of the Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis proposing revisions to FAA's current policy regarding compensation for flight instructors and persons maintaining aircraft within the context of flying club operations. AOPA stated in its letter that it sought “to help current flying clubs and airport sponsors comply with the FAA guidance outlined in 5190.6B, and to provide future flying clubs the opportunity to strengthen and unify general aviation pilots.” AOPA said that its goal is “to provide guidance that is attainable and ensures educated compliance from all airport users,” and asked for “updated guidance regarding compensation for flight instructors and maintainers” because “flight instructors and aviation mechanics are valuable assets to the aviation industry, and should be granted the privilege of fair compensation for their efforts on a local level.”

AOPA proposes clubs be permitted to compensate member flight instructors and member mechanics for services rendered to the club or club members. Such compensation, AOPA suggests, should be monetary or in the form of credit against payment of dues or flight time.

The FAA requested comments on whether AOPA's recommendations are consistent with the FAA's general policies regarding commercial aeronautical services and on-airport flying clubs, and if so, whether the stated agency policy on flying clubs should be revised to amend its definition of flying clubs. In particular, the FAA sought comments from commercial service providers that engage in flight training and aircraft rental, from associations representing such service providers, and other interested parties. Public comments were received and considered, and changes to the existing policy were adopted.

I. Current Policy

FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order), paragraph 10(6)(a), published on September 30, 2009, defines a flying club as: “a nonprofit or not-for-profit entity (e.g., corporation, association, or partnership) organized for the express purpose of providing its members with aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment only.” The Order states that,

the ownership of the club aircraft must be vested in the name of the flying club or owned by all its members. The property rights of the members of the club shall be equal; no part of the net earnings of the club will inure to the benefit of any individual in any form, including salaries, bonuses, etc. The flying club may not derive greater revenue from the use of its aircraft than the amount needed for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of its aircraft. FAA Order 5190.6B at para. 10(6)(b).

The Order also notes that “flying clubs may not offer or conduct . . . aircraft rental operations. They may conduct aircraft flight instruction for regular members only, and only members of the flying club may operate the aircraft.” FAA Order 5190.6B at para. 10.6(c)(1). The Order also states that “no flying club shall permit its aircraft to be used for flight instruction for any person, including members of the club owning the aircraft, when such person pays or becomes obligated to pay for such instruction. FAA Order 5190.6B at para. 10.6(c)(3). An exception applies when the instruction is given by a lessee based on the airport who provides flight training and the person receiving the training is a member of the flying club. Id. Flight instructors who are also club members may not receive payment for instruction except that they may be compensated by credit against payment of dues or flight time” and that “any qualified mechanic who is a registered member and part owner of the aircraft owned and operated by a flying club may perform maintenance work on aircraft owned by the club. The flying club may not become obligated to pay for such maintenance work except that such mechanics may be compensated by credit against payment of dues or flight time.” Flying clubs are defined in such a way as to differentiate from for-profit aeronautical businesses offering aeronautical services to general public, e.g., FBOs, flight schools and aircraft rental providers.

The owner of any federally-obligated airport (airport sponsor) is required by the sponsor grant assurances to operate that airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make that airport available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms, without unjust discrimination.

II. AOPA Proposal

AOPA states that its recommendations are designed to promote flying clubs by allowing flight instructors and mechanics who are club members to receive monetary compensation for services conducted for other club members or club aircraft:

AOPA Policy Proposal Item 1

“No flying club shall permit its aircraft to be used for flight instruction for any person, including members of the club owning the aircraft, when such person pays or becomes obligated to pay for such instruction except in the following circumstances; (a) The flight instruction is provided to a club member by a commercial operator authorized by the airport sponsor to provide flight instruction on field. (b) The flight instruction is provided to a club member by a flight instructor who is also a club member that is in good standings according to the club bylaws. In either case, the flight instructor may receive monetary compensation; however the flying club is prohibited from holding itself out to the public as a fixed based operator, a specialized aviation service operation, or a flight school. In the case of (b) above, the Airport Sponsor has the right to limit flight instruction for monetary compensation but must permit the club to compensate club instructors with credit against payment of dues or flight time.”

AOPA Policy Proposal Item 2

“Any qualified mechanic who is a member of the flying club may perform maintenance work on aircraft owned or exclusively used by the flying club. The flying club may not become obligated to pay for such maintenance work except that such mechanics may be compensated not to exceed a reasonable rate for the work performed at the discretion of club members. The club however may not hold out to the public as operating as a fixed base operator, a specialized aviation service operation, or maintenance facility. The Airport Sponsor has the right to limit maintenance work for monetary compensation but must permit the club to compensate club mechanics with credit against payment of dues or flight time.”

III. Comments Received

The FAA received comments from 44 airport users including flight instructors, pilots and flying club members. Thirty-seven of the airport users were flying club members who submitted a letter identifying themselves as “Flying Club Participants at Air Venture 2015”. The remaining seven airport users submitted individual comments. Two industry groups submitted comments: Flight School Association of North America (FSANA) and National Air Transportation Association of North America (NATA). FSANA is a membership-based association representing flight schools and firms involved in flight training. NATA is an organization representing the interest of aviation businesses such as aircraft fueling, maintenance, parts sales, storage, rental, airline servicing, flight training, Part 135 on-demand air charter, and fractional aircraft program management.

Forty-three airport users offered support of both AOPA Policy Proposals: An individual commenter believes that the policy change would provide an incentive for pilots who belong to flying clubs to remain current and continue their education in a convenient, cost-effective, and familiar environment. Another commenter indicated that small airports rely on flying clubs because there is not enough business activity to support a flight school. This commenter is an inactive pilot because there is no aircraft rental or flight training available at the airport. However, the club at a local airport has several certificated flight instructors (CFI). Many CFIs have full time jobs and are not interested in donating their evenings and weekends without compensation. The president of a nonprofit flying club at Skyhaven Airport in Rochester, New Hampshire, indicates that the airport does not have a flight school. None of the club members can receive proficiency checkouts or additional training in club aircraft without violating the airport's policy. There are several CFIs in the community that would join the club if they could be compensated.

Supporters of the AOPA proposal believe the proposed policy change would (1) provide enhanced opportunities for students to fulfill their educational needs in surroundings they find appealing and accessible; (2) provide incentive for pilots who are members of flying clubs to remain current; and (3) create additional opportunities and incentives for certificated flight instructors to actively participate in flying clubs.

A commenter is opposed to a change in policy. He believes it will weaken “for profit” flight schools which have suffered financially for the past eight years.

FSANA believes that flying clubs can be a positive asset to the community. FSANA recognizes that flying clubs that are not for profit have a business advantage over for profit flight schools. They also believe a flying club should not be classified as a commercial operator. FSANA supports compensation for certificated flight instructors and mechanics as long as flying clubs serve the needs of their members and not promote their services to the general public and do not compete with commercial operators. FSANA encouraged the FAA to create awareness and enforce transparency for the flying club community and airport sponsors to ensure that flying clubs do not compete with commercial operators and promote themselves to the general public.

NATA recognizes AOPA's initiative is intended to increase public interest in flying by strengthening flying clubs. Of concern to NATA are those entities that classify themselves as flying clubs but are commercial aviation businesses thus avoiding compliance with an airport sponsor's minimum standards. NATA asserts that flying clubs that offer their services to the general public should not be able to enjoy the protection of a non-profit flying club to avoid complying with an airport's minimum standards. NATA does not object to either of AOPA's proposals but recommends that CFIs and mechanics receive either (1) monetary compensation or (2) discounted/waived regular club member dues or flying time, but not both. NATA believes that without such a restriction, outside instructors or mechanics could receive waived dues and monetary compensation for performing work without ever having invested in the club as would a bona-fide member. NATA suggests that the policy change with these limitations will be beneficial and will create a more level playing field.

FSANA and NATA suggest that any clarification of the policy should emphasize that (1) flying clubs should at no time hold themselves out as fixed based operators, flight schools, or as businesses at which people can learn to fly; and (2) CFIs and mechanics should be permitted to receive monetary compensation as long as flying clubs of which they are members meet adequate criteria, which may include the airport sponsor's authorization and/or sponsor-imposed conditions. FSANA and NATA also recommended that flying clubs must not indicate in any form of marketing and/or communications that they are a flight school, and flying clubs must not indicate in any form of marketing and/or communications that they are a business where people can learn to fly.

IV. Final Policy Changes

FAA's primary concern is that flying clubs operating at federally-obligated airports must conform to the FAA definition found in FAA Order 5190.6B, paragraph 10.6. As stated, the Order defines “a flying club as a nonprofit or not-for-profit entity (e.g., corporation, association, or partnership) organized for the express purpose of providing its members with aircraft for their personal use and enjoyment only.” In addition, the ownership of the club aircraft must be vested in the name of the flying club or owned by all its members, the property rights of the members of the club shall be equal and no part of the net earnings of the club will inure to the benefit of any individual in any form, including salaries, bonuses, etc. These flying clubs can be distinguished from commercial service providers that use the term “flying club” to describe their operation in order to avoid having to comply with the airport's minimum standards for commercial service providers Those “flying clubs” do not conform to the FAA definition and put other commercial aeronautical service providers at an economic disadvantage. Generally, they hold themselves out to the public as alternatives to traditional flight schools and aircraft rental providers, and charge only nominal annual “club fees.”

FAA policy will emphasize three points: (1) Flying clubs should at no time hold themselves out as fixed based operators, flight schools, or as businesses offering services to the general public; and (2) CFIs and mechanics should be permitted to receive either monetary compensation or discounted/waived regular club member dues but not both; (3) flying clubs must not indicate, in any form of marketing and/or communications, that they are a flight school and flying clubs must not indicate in any form of marketing and/or communications that they are a business where people can learn to fly. FAA agrees with NATA that flight instructors and mechanics should be bona-fide club members paying dues as a condition to receiving compensation for services or a bona-fide member receiving a discount or waiver of dues with no compensation. To offer both compensation and discounted/waived dues may result in abuse and the use of outside instructors and mechanics who have no investment of time or commitment to the club. Additionally, FAA agrees with NATA and FSANA that flying clubs must distinguish themselves from other aeronautical service providers.

FAA expects that sponsors of federally-obligated airports will take appropriate action to ensure that commercial operators and flying clubs are properly classified, and the sponsor's actions are consistent with its grant assurances, specifically Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination.

FAA's policy regarding flying clubs is amended by revising FAA Order 5190.6B paragraphs 10.6(c)(3) and (4) and by adding paragraphs 10.6 (c)(8) and (9):

b. General The ownership of the club aircraft must be vested in the name of the flying club or owned by all its members. The property rights of the members of the club shall be equal; no part of the net earnings of the club will inure to the benefit of any individual in any form, including salaries, bonuses, etc. The flying club may not derive greater revenue from the use of its aircraft than the amount needed for the operation, maintenance and replacement of its aircraft.

(c)(3). A flying club may permit its aircraft to be used for flight instruction in a club-owned aircraft as long as both the instructor providing instruction and person receiving instruction are members of the club owning the aircraft, or when the instruction is given by a lessee based on the airport who provides flight training and the person receiving the training is a member of the flying club. In either circumstance, a flight instructor may receive monetary compensation for instruction or may be compensated by credit against payment of dues or flight time; however that individual may not receive both compensation and waived or discounted dues or flight time concurrently. The airport sponsor may set limits on the amount of instruction that may be performed for compensation.

(c)(4). A qualified mechanic who is a registered member and part owner of the aircraft owned and operated by a flying club may perform maintenance work on aircraft owned by the club. The mechanic may receive monetary compensation for such maintenance work or may be compensated by credit against payment of dues or flight time; however that individual may not receive both compensation and waived or discounted dues or flight time concurrently. The airport sponsor may set limits on the amount of maintenance that may be performed for compensation.

(c)(8). Flying Clubs may not hold themselves out to the public as fixed based operators, a specialized aviation service operation, maintenance facility or a flight school and are prohibited from advertisements as such or be required to comply with the appropriate airport minimum standards.

(c)(9). Flying Clubs may not indicate in any form of marketing and/or communications that they are a flight school, and Flying Clubs must not indicate in any form of marketing and/or communications that they are a business where people can learn to fly.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2016. Byron Huffman, Acting Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2016-05833 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 19 CFR Part 12 [CBP Dec. 16-05] RIN 1515-AE08 Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological and Ethnological Materials From the Republic of Colombia AGENCY:

Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect the extension of import restrictions on certain archaeological and ethnological materials from the Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”). The restrictions, which were originally imposed by CBP Decision (Dec.) 06-09 and extended by CBP Dec. 11-06, are due to expire on March 15, 2016. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, has determined that factors continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions and no cause for suspension exists. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this extension until March 15, 2021. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the United States Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act that implemented the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. CBP Dec. 06-09 contains the Designated List of archaeological and ethnological materials of Colombia to which the restrictions apply.

DATES:

Effective Date: March 15, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For legal aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, (202) 325-0215. For operational aspects, William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Agency Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, (202) 863-6554, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention, implemented by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), the United States entered into a bilateral agreement with the Republic of Colombia (“Colombia”) on March 15, 2006, concerning the imposition of import restrictions on certain archeological and ethnological materials from Colombia (the “Agreement”). On March 17, 2006, CBP published CBP Dec. 06-09 in the Federal Register (71 FR 13757), which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of these restrictions and included a list designating the types of articles covered by the restrictions.

Import restrictions listed in 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of not more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the initial agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists.

Since the initial document was published on March 17, 2006, the import restrictions were extended on March 15, 2011. CBP published CBP Dec. 11-06 in the Federal Register (76 FR 13879) which amended 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension for an additional period of five years.

On July 23, 2015, the Department of State received a request by the Government of Colombia to extend the Agreement. Subsequently, the Department of State proposed to extend the Agreement. After considering the views and recommendations of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, determined that the cultural heritage of Colombia continues to be in jeopardy from pillage of archaeological and ethnological materials and made the necessary determinations to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years. Diplomatic notes have been exchanged, reflecting the extension of those restrictions for an additional five-year period. Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect this extension of the import restrictions.

The Designated List of archaeological and ethnological materials from Colombia covered by these import restrictions is set forth in CBP Dec. 06-09. The Designated List may also be found at the following Internet Web site address: http://eca.state.gov/cultural-heritage-center/cultural-property-protection/bilateral-agreements/colombia.

The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological and ethnological materials from Colombia are to continue in effect for an additional five years. Importation of such materials continues to be restricted unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.

Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed Effective Date

This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to avoid interruption of the application of the existing import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reasons, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Signing Authority

This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12

Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.

Amendment to CBP Regulations

For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:

PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE 1. The general authority citation for part 12 and the specific authority citation for § 12.104g continue to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.

Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;

§ 12.104g [Amended]
2. In § 12.104g, paragraph (a), the table is amended in the entry for Colombia by removing the reference to “CBP Dec. 11-06” and adding in its place “CBP Dec. 16-05”.
R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Approved: March 10, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2016-05811 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Part 924 [Docket No. FHWA-2013-0019] RIN 2125-AF56 Highway Safety Improvement Program AGENCY:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this final rule is to incorporate changes to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) regulations to address provisions in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) as well as to incorporate clarifications to better explain existing regulatory language. The DOT also considered the HSIP provisions in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in the development of the HSIP final rule. Specifically, this rule removes the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report that describes not less than 5 percent of locations that exhibit the most severe safety needs, removes the High Risk Rural Roads (HRRR) set-aside, and removes the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in accordance with Federal law. This rule also establishes a subset of roadway data elements, and creates procedures to ensure that States adopt and use the subset. Finally, this rule adds State Strategic Highway Safety Plan update requirements and requires States to report HSIP performance targets.

DATES:

This final rule is effective April 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Karen Scurry, Office of Safety, [email protected]; or William Winne, Office of the Chief Counsel [email protected], Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access and Filing

This document, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), and all comments received may be viewed online through: http://www.regulations.gov. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available on the Web site. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.ofr.gov and the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.thefederalregister.org.

Executive Summary I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94) continue the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) under section 148, title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) as a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The MAP-21 amended the HSIP by requiring the DOT to establish several new requirements and removes several provisions that were introduced under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). A revision to 23 CFR part 924 is necessary to align with the MAP-21 and FAST provisions and clarify existing program requirements. A key component of this rule is the requirement for States to collect and use a set of roadway data elements for all public roadways, including local roads. Data elements include elements to classify and delineate roadway segments (e.g., beginning and end point descriptors), elements to identify roadway physical characteristics (e.g., median type and ramp length), and elements to identify traffic volume. The purpose of this requirement, in addition to satisfying a statutory requirement, is to improve States' ability to estimate expected number of crashes at roadway locations, with the ultimate goal to improve States' allocation of safety resources.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

This final rule retains most of the major NPRM provisions without change, with the exception of the Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) fundamental data elements (FDE). The MAP-21 requires DOT to establish a subset of model roadway elements (a.k.a. MIRE) FDE (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(2)(A)). Based on the review and analysis of comments received in response to the NPRM, FHWA revised the required MIRE FDE in this final rule to clarify where the data elements shall be collected (i.e. based on functional classification, rather than volume). The MIRE FDE are the minimum roadway data elements an agency would need to conduct system-wide network screening and can be divided into the following categories: (1) MIRE FDE that define roadway segments, intersections and interchanges/ramps, (2) MIRE FDE that delineate basic information needed to characterize the roadway type and exposure, and (3) MIRE FDE that identify governmental ownership and functional classification consistent with the HSIP reporting requirements. The FHWA believes that the roadway data elements are the fundamental set of data elements that an agency would need in order to conduct enhanced safety analyses to improve safety investment decisionmaking through the HSIP. The MIRE FDE also has the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP.

The MAP-21 also requires the DOT to establish the update cycle for Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) (23 U.S.C. 148(d)(1)(A)) and the content and schedule for the HSIP report (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(2)). An SHSP is a statewide-coordinated safety plan that identifies a State's key safety needs and guides investment decisions toward strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives and prevent injuries. This final rule establishes an SHSP update cycle of at least every 5 years, consistent with the NPRM and current practice in most States. For example, 45 States updated their SHSP or had an SHSP update underway within a 5-year timeframe. A number of those States are on the third version of their SHSP. Of those States that have not delivered an SHSP update, they have an update planned or well underway. The final rule also maintains the requirement that States submit their HSIP reports on an annual basis, by August 31 each year. In addition to existing reporting requirements, DOT requires that State DOTs document their safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and the basis on which those targets were established in their annual HSIP report, and describe progress to achieve those safety performance targets in future HSIP reports. The DOT also requires States to use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports, consistent with the NPRM and the Office of the Inspector General's recommendations in the 2013 HSIP Audit.1 Currently, a majority of States use the HSIP online reporting tool to submit their annual HSIP reports. All HSIP reports are publicly available on the FHWA Web site. 2

1 Office of the Inspector General, Audit Report: FHWA Provides Sufficient Guidance and Assistance to Implement the Highway Safety Improvement Program but Could Do More to Assess Program Results, Report Number: MH-2013-055, March 26, 2013, is available at the following Internet Web site: https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/FHWA's%20Highway%20Safety%20Improvement%20Program%5E3-26-13.pdf.

2 HSIP reports can be found at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports

While the MAP-21 allowed HSIP funds to be eligible for any type of highway safety improvement project (i.e., infrastructure or non-infrastructure); the FAST Act limits this flexibility. In response to the FAST Act provisions and comments received on the NPRM, FHWA removes the provision that required FHWA to assess the extent to which other eligible funding programs are programmed for non-infrastructure projects prior to using HSIP funds for these purposes in this final rule. The DOT also adopts language throughout the final rule to be consistent with the performance management requirements under 23 U.S.C. 150.

Lastly, as described in the NPRM, this final rule removes all existing references to the HRRR Program, 10 percent flexibility provisions, and transparency reports since MAP-21 eliminated these provisions.

III. Costs and Benefits

Of the three requirements mandated by MAP-21 and addressed in this rule (MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle, and HSIP Report Content and Schedule), FHWA believes that only the requirement regarding the MIRE FDE would result in additional costs. The SAFETEA-LU and the existing regulation already require States to update their SHSP on a regular basis; the final rule establishes a cycle of at least every 5 years for States to update their SHSP. The final rule does not change the existing schedule for the HSIP report. The MAP-21 results in only minimal proposed changes to the HSIP report content related to reporting safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d); however, additional costs as a result of this new content are negligible and the removal of the transparency report requirements reduces existing reporting costs. The costs to establish the safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) are considered under the concurrent rulemaking for safety performances measures (Docket number FHWA-2013-020). There were no comments to the docket indicating that any of the changes listed above, other than those relating to MIRE FDE, would result in increased costs to the States. Therefore, FHWA bases its cost-benefit analysis on the MIRE FDE component only and uses the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” Report 3 for this purpose.

3 “MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,” dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.

Table 1 displays the estimated total net present value cost of the requirements for States to collect, maintain, and use the proposed MIRE FDE for all public roadways.

Total costs are estimated to be $659.1 million undiscounted, $508.0 million discounted at 3 percent, and $378.7 million discounted at 7 percent. Although not a specific requirement of this final rule, the cost estimate also includes an estimate of the cost for States to extend their statewide linear referencing system (LRS) to all public roads, since an all-public-roads LRS is a prerequisite to realizing the full benefits from collecting and using the MIRE FDE. This cost is estimated to be $32,897,622 nationally (discounted at 7 percent). The cost estimates reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) or not already being collected through other efforts. In order for the rule to have net safety benefits, States would need to analyze the collected data, use it to identify locations with road safety improvement potential, shift project funding to those locations, and those projects would need to have more safety benefits than the projects invested in using current methods which do not incorporate the proposed MIRE FDE. Additional costs for data quality control, local agency coordination, and data analysis are also included in the MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report.

Table 1—Total Estimated Net Present Value National Costs for MIRE FDE [2015-2035 Analysis period] Cost components Total national costs
  • (net present value)
  • Undiscounted 3% 7%
    Cost of Section 924.17: Linear Referencing System (LRS) $34,010,102 $33,514,809 $32,897,622 Initial Data Collection 113,395,680 96,253,460 78,854,599 Roadway Segments 68,879,288 57,899,768 46,795,474 Intersections 2,161,256 1,816,747 1,468,323 Interchange/Ramp locations 1,057,984 889,339 718,777 Volume Collection 41,297,152 35,657,606 29,872,025 Maintenance of data system 65,683,740 45,319,305 28,907,829 Management & administration 6,410,685 5,388,807 4,355,316 Miscellaneous 499,585,598 327,522,078 233,726,851 Total Cost 659,085,805 508,008,459 378,742,217

    The cost for developing a statewide LRS would equate to on average $645,051 for each State and the District of Columbia. The cost for data collection for an average State is estimated to be $1,546,169 for the initial data collection and $85,398 for management and administration costs,4 $566,820 for maintenance costs 5 and $4,582,879 for miscellaneous costs 6 over the analysis period of 2015-2035 (2014 U.S. dollars).7 These estimates are net present value average costs on a per average State basis discounted at 7 percent. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for the initial data collection would be approximately $79 million over 10 years and the total maintenance, management, and administration and miscellaneous costs would approach $267 million over the 20 year analysis period.8

    4 DOT defines management and administration costs as the costs to administer contracts for data collection. The analysis estimates management and administration costs at 5 percent of the estimated initial MIRE FDE collection costs. The analysis assumes management and administration costs would not exceed $260,000 per State.

    5 DOT defines maintenance costs as the costs to update the data as conditions change. The analysis assumes that 2 percent of roadway mileage would need to be updated annually.

    6 DOT defines miscellaneous costs include the one-time cost of developing an implementation plan and cost of data collection mobilization and annual ongoing costs of local agency partner liaison, formatting and analyzing enhanced data and desktop and web application.

    7 “MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,” dated May 13, 2015 is available on the docket for this rulemaking.

    8 Ibid.

    The MIRE FDE are beneficial because collecting this roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process would improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. The FHWA did not estimate the benefits of this rule. Instead, FHWA has conducted a breakeven analysis. There were no comments to the docket indicating that a different type of analysis should be performed, except that the cost-benefit analysis should also consider a benefit/cost ratio of 10:1 since this is the average benefit/cost ratio for a typical highway safety improvement project. Table 2 shows the reduction in fatalities and injuries due to improvements in safety investment decisionmaking with the use of the MIRE FDE that would be needed for the costs of the data collection to equal the benefits and for the benefits to exceed the cost 10 times.

    Table 2—Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 10:1 [2015-2035 Analysis period] Benefits Number of lives saved/injuries avoided nationally Benefit/Cost ratio of 1:1 Benefit/Cost ratio of 10:1 # of lives saved (fatalities) 76 763 # of injuries avoided 5,020 50,201

    Using the 2014 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,300,000 and $109,800 for an average injury,9 results in an estimated reduction of one fatality and 98 injuries per average State over the 2015-2035 analysis period would be needed to result in a benefit-cost ratio greater than 1:1.10 To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 10:1, each State would need to reduce fatalities by 15 and injuries by 984 over the same analysis period.11 The FHWA believes this is possible because the MIRE FDE, in combination with crash data, will support more cost-effective safety investment decisions and ultimately yield greater reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar invested. Further, the experiences to date in States that are already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the MIRE FDE suggests there is a very high likelihood that the benefits of collecting and using the proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs.

    9 “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, 2014 Update. www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.

    10 Ibid.

    11 Ibid.

    Background

    On March 28, 2014, at 79 FR 17464, the FHWA published a NPRM proposing to revise the regulations in 23 CFR part 924 Highway Safety Improvement Program. The HSIP is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance. The NPRM was published to incorporate the new statutory requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act, as well as general updates to provide consistency with 23 U.S.C. 148 and to provide State and local safety partners with clarity on the purpose, definitions, policy, program structure, planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of the HSIP. Specifically, MAP-21 removed the requirement for States to prepare a Transparency Report, removed the HRRR set-aside, and removed the 10 percent flexibility provision for States to use safety funding in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(e) [as it existed under SAFETEA-LU]. The MAP-21 also adds data system and improvement requirements, State SHSP update requirements, and requirements for States to develop HSIP performance targets. The DOT is addressing specific requirements related to HSIP performance target requirements through a separate, but concurrent, rulemaking effort (FHWA-2013-0020).

    Stakeholder Outreach

    As discussed above, the MAP-21 required the Secretary of Transportation to establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements, or the MIRE FDE, that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety. The U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) supported collection of FDEs on the progress made toward accomplishing the HSIP goals in a November 2008, report entitled “Highway Safety Improvement Program: Further Efforts Needed to Address Data Limitations and Better Align Funding with States' Top Safety Priorities.” As discussed in the NPRM, the GAO report recommended that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FHWA Administrator to take specific actions and FHWA published, “Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program.” 12 As part of addressing GAO's recommendations, FHWA engaged in efforts to obtain public input. The FHWA hosted a peer exchange at the 2009 Asset Management Conference, two Webinars in December 2009, and one listening session at the January 2010 Transportation Research Board meeting to obtain input on possible approaches to address the GAO's recommendations. During the Webinars and the listening session, FHWA listened carefully to the comments and concerns expressed by the stakeholders and used that information when developing the August 1, 2011, Guidance Memorandum. The August 1 Guidance Memorandum formed the basis for the State Safety Data System guidance published on December 27, 2012.

    12 Guidance Memorandum on Fundamental Roadway and Traffic Data Elements to Improve the Highway Safety Improvement Program, issued August 1, 2011 can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/memohsip072911/.

    Summary of Comments

    The FHWA received 62 letters submitted to the docket containing approximately 425 individual comments. Comments were received from 41 State departments of transportation (State DOT), 4 local government agencies, 10 associations (e.g. the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), American Transportation Safety Services Association (ATSSA), and Geospatial Transportation Mapping Association (GTMA)), and 7 private citizens. The FHWA has reviewed and analyzed all the comments received. The FHWA has also reviewed and considered the implications of the FAST Act on the HSIP Final Rule. The significant issues raised in the comments and summaries of the FHWA's analyses and determinations are discussed below.

    Section 924.1 Purpose

    The FHWA did not receive any substantive comments regarding the proposed change to clarify that the purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the HSIP, rather than to set forth policy and therefore revises the regulation as proposed.

    Section 924.3 Definitions

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes the following definitions because they are no longer used in the regulation: “integrated interoperable emergency communication equipment,” “interoperable emergency communications system,” “operational improvements,” “safety projects under any other section,” “State,” and “transparency report.” There were no substantive comments to the docket regarding the proposed removal of these definitions; therefore FHWA removes them in this final rule.

    In the NPRM, FHWA also proposed to remove the definition of “high risk rural road” (HRRR) because this term is no longer used in the regulation. The Delaware DOT supported the removal of the term. However, ATSSA and the American Highway Users Alliance suggested retaining the definition of the term “high risk rural road” because there is still a special rule that links to HRRRs in MAP-21. The Arizona DOT suggested that, if an HRRR is considered a public road, it should be treated like any other public road, rather than as part of a special rule, and HSIP funds should be used to target locations of high frequency of fatalities or serious injuries. As a result, Arizona DOT suggested that a consistent definition for HRRR should be established that applies to all States. Under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(1), States have the flexibility to define high risk rural road in accordance with their updated SHSP. Because the definitions portion of the regulation is meant to define specific terms used in the regulation, the FHWA deletes the definition in the final rule, since the term is not used in the regulation.

    In the NPRM, the FHWA proposed to remove the definition of “highway-rail grade crossing protective devices” from the regulation. The ATSSA, the Railway Supply Institute, and the American Highway Users Alliance all opposed the removal of the definition. The Railway Supply Institute and the American Highway Users Alliance cited the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 130 that allow funds to be available for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. The commenters suggested that given that statutory requirement, it is important to provide a clear definition of the type of devices eligible for funding under this section of law, and that the existing definition of protective devices in 23 CFR 924.3 does that and should be retained. In addition, commenters noted that a version of this term was retained in 23 CFR 924.11. The FHWA agrees and retains the definition in the final rule with a slight modification to the term, revising it to “railway-highway crossing protective device.” The FHWA uses the term “railway” rather than railroad throughout the regulation for consistency with the program title under 23 U.S.C. 130.

    Although FHWA did not propose a change to the term “hazard index formula” the FHWA received a comment from Washington State DOT suggesting the term implies an unsafe condition. The AASHTO and Georgia DOT commented that the term “hazard,” which is used throughout the regulation, implies an unsafe condition on a roadway. The commenters suggested that the use of the term “hazard” creates a liability for many State DOTs since it implies that an unsafe condition does exist when it does not. The commenters requested that the term “risk” or “relative risk” be used, because it would be more accurate and not inadvertently create potential liability for State DOTs, and would be more in keeping with the state of the practice. Because “hazard index formula” is an industry standard term and changing it would cause confusion, FHWA retains the existing term. The FHWA agrees with the commenter that the hazard index formula is used for determining the relative risks at a railway-highway crossing and therefore revised the definition to refer to “relative risk.” Because the term “hazard” is used throughout the legislation, FHWA retains the term for consistency between the legislation and the regulation.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition for the term “highway” to clarify the definition of 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and the provision that HSIP funds can be used for highway safety improvement projects on any facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(v) and (e)(1)(A). The GTMA suggested that, given the role of roadway pavement markings in supporting advanced lane detection vehicle technologies, the term “markings” be included as one of the associated elements of a road, street, or parkway in the definition of the term “highway.” The FHWA agrees and includes “markings” in the definition of the term “highway.”

    The FHWA proposed to revise the definition of “highway safety improvement program” in the NPRM by adding the acronym “HSIP” to indicate that when the acronym HSIP is used in the regulation it is referring to the program carried out under 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148, and not the program of highway safety improvement projects. The FHWA proposed to include a listing of the HSIP components—Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings program, and program of highway safety improvement projects—in the definition. The GTMA suggested that the definition indicate that the program is designed to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of the provisions in 23 U.S.C. 130 and 148. The FHWA agrees and revises the definition to indicate that the purpose of the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150. The FHWA adds a reference to 23 U.S.C. 150 in the final rule to be inclusive of all applicable legislation. The FHWA also adds the term “data-driven,” as suggested by the Rhode Island DOT, to describe the SHSP and to clarify that it is developed from a data-driven approach.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition of “highway safety improvement project” to specify that it includes strategies, activities, and projects and that such projects can include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects under 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(A) and (c)(2)(C)(i). The ATSSA disagreed with the expansion of the definition to include both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects, stating that the HSIP was created to focus on safety infrastructure investments. The FAST Act limits HSIP eligibility to the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B). Therefore, FHWA removes the general reference to non-infrastructure projects as proposed in the NPRM. The ATSSA also disagreed with the removal of the listing of example projects from the regulation. The ATSSA reasoned that the list was created for a reason to serve as a guidepost and to direct States in their investment decisions, and that while it is not an exhaustive list, it does reiterate the types of infrastructure projects that funds should be focused on in the States. Because it is not an exhaustive list, FHWA believes it is best to refer readers to 23 U.S.C. 148(a) for the most current list of example projects.

    The FHWA replaces the term “public grade crossing” with “public railway-highway crossing” because the term public grade crossing is no longer used in the regulation. It was replaced with public railway highway crossing in section 924.9 in the NPRM. In addition, consistent with the NPRM, FHWA revises the definition of this term to clarify that associated sidewalks, pathways, and shared use paths are also elements of a public grade crossing pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 130(l)(4)(A)(i) and (ii). There were no substantive comments regarding this change.

    The ATSSA, GTMA, and Maine DOT supported the proposed addition to the definition of “public road” that non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands are considered public roads pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(12)(D), (b)(2), (c)(2)(A)(i), (c)(2)(D)(ii), and (d)(1)(B)(viii) in the NPRM. Virginia DOT suggested clarification regarding Federal roadways as well as alleys and service roads maintained by a public agency. The FHWA reiterates that Federal roadways are included in the definition of public road, unless otherwise noted, and that a public road is any road open to public travel, which includes alleys and service roads. The purpose of the HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Therefore, FHWA encourages State DOTs to coordinate with all relevant stakeholders to meet the requirements of the program. Comments from Alaska and Arizona DOTs regarding data collection on public roads and roads open to public travel are addressed in section 924.17.

    Although FHWA did not propose changes to the term “road safety audit” in the NPRM, ATSSA suggested that FHWA clarify that the purpose of the “road safety audit” is to improve road safety for all users. The FHWA agrees and makes this change in the final rule.

    The FHWA removes “vehicle data” from the listing of safety data components in the definition of “safety data” to be consistent with MAP-21, 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)(A), as proposed in the NPRM. As suggested by the GTMA, FHWA adds the term “characteristics” to reinforce that “roadway” refers to the physical attributes of the road segment.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to expand the definition of “safety stakeholder” to include a list of stakeholders. Although the list is not exhaustive, FHWA proposed including this list to ensure that States are aware of the range of stakeholders that are, at a minimum, required to be involved in SHSP development and implementation efforts. While the Mid-America Regional Council (the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the bi-state Kansas City region) supported the inclusion of MPOs in the list of safety stakeholders, the GTMA suggested that FHWA add State and local emergency medical response officials and private sector representatives involved with roadway safety and data collection because they could provide valuable perspectives on the impacts of crashes. The FHWA agrees that these entities could provide meaningful information and States are encouraged to include such entities, as well as others that are not listed, in their safety planning efforts. The FHWA retains the definition as proposed in the NPRM to be consistent with MAP-21.

    Although FHWA proposed to revise the definition of “serious injury” in the NPRM, FHWA deletes the definition of “serious injury” in the final rule due to the concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (FHWA-2013-0020 at 79 FR 13846). A specific definition of serious injury is not necessary for this regulation. States have effectively managed the HSIP using their own definition for serious injury since the inception of the HSIP. The MAP-21 or FAST did not make any changes to how the HSIP is managed or administered regarding serious injury. Not including a serious injury definition in this regulation gives States the flexibility to consider their own definition of serious injuries for problem identification. However, since it is necessary for all States to use the same definition of “serious injury” for safety performance measures, the term will be defined exclusively in 23 CFR part 490.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to revise the definition of “strategic highway safety plan” to indicate that the SHSP is a multidisciplinary plan, rather than a data-driven one to be consistent with MAP-21. Wisconsin DOT supported the concept that the SHSP is a multidisciplinary plan and that the multidisciplinary component is an important part of the plan. The Rhode Island DOT indicated that they view the SHSP as a multidisciplinary plan that is developed from a data-driven approach, and therefore felt that removing data-driven requirement from SHSP seems to contradict with the objective of HSIP. Delaware DOT and ATSSA also disagreed with removing the term “data-driven” and suggested it be retained due to the importance of linking investments of HSIP funds to data in MAP-21. The FHWA agrees that the SHSP should be developed based on data and revises the definition in the final rule to reflect that the SHSP is a comprehensive, data-driven plan consistent with the definition in 23 U.S.C. 148. The term comprehensive as used here means multidisciplinary. Additional clarification will be provided in guidance.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to add definitions for “spot safety improvement” and “systemic safety improvement” to clarify the difference between these types of improvements. The Minnesota DOT suggested further clarification to the definition of “systemic safety improvement,” since it goes beyond a countermeasure that is being widely installed. Minnesota DOT suggested further definition is needed so States can confidently deploy systemic safety projects in small quantities when needed, and prohibit large quantity deployments of unproven countermeasures under the guise of a systemic safety project. The FWHA agrees and revises the definition in the final rule to indicate that systemic safety improvements are proven safety countermeasures. The FHWA adopts the definition for “spot safety improvement” as proposed in the NPRM.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adds two definitions of terms used in the regulation: “Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements” and “reporting year.” There were no significant comments to the docket regarding these definitions; however, FHWA incorporates minor editorial changes to the definition of “Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) Fundamental Data Elements” in the final rule.

    Section 924.5 Policy

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA incorporates minor editorial modifications in paragraph (a) to explicitly state that the HSIP's objective is to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries, rather than “the occurrence of and potential for fatalities and serious injuries” as written in the existing regulation.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to delete from paragraph (b) the provisions related to 10 percent flex funds, due to the removal of the flex fund provisions in MAP-21. The AASHTO and Georgia DOT supported the elimination of the 10 percent flex funds provision in exchange for being able to use the funds to maximize the potential safety benefit of HSIP expenditures. The FHWA also proposed to add language that funding shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that maximize opportunities to advance safety consistent with the State's SHSP and have the greatest potential to reduce the State's fatalities and serious injuries. The AASHTO and Minnesota DOT suggested that the language, as proposed, appeared to be unduly detailed or prescriptive and would not allow a State the flexibility and ability to program safety projects that might act to curtail State programming flexibility beyond any statutory requirement. Georgia DOT also expressed concern that the proposed language implies that all projects can be compared side-by-side to one another, which is not possible or practicable. Montana DOT expressed similar concerns. As a result, the FHWA revises the language in the final rule to state that HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP, and that HSIP funds should be used to maximize the opportunities to advance highway safety improvement projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

    In the NPRM, FHWA further proposed to clarify that prior to using HSIP funds for non-infrastructure related safety projects, other Federal funds provided to the State for non-infrastructure safety programs (including but not limited to those administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)) should be fully programmed. The FHWA's intent in the NPRM was for States to use all available resources to support their highway safety needs and make progress toward a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The NPRM further stated that in the case of non-infrastructure projects involving NHTSA grant funds, State DOTs should consult State Highway Safety Offices about the project eligibility under 23 U.S.C. 402.

    The AASHTO expressed concern that a lack of flexibility by the Federal agencies will impact any opportunities that States may have to be innovative in using such funds to address non-infrastructure types of safety projects. The AASHTO, virtually all of the States that commented on this provision, California Walks, and a private citizen supported the ability to use HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects, but expressed concern that the added requirement of “all other eligible funding for non-infrastructure projects must be used prior to using HSIP funds” may be limiting and a detriment. Michigan DOT stated that non-HSIP funding for non-infrastructure based safety solutions may not be under the direction of the State DOT and, therefore, the flexibility of State DOTs in the use of HSIP funding should not be restricted by the decisions made on how non-HSIP funds are used by other entities. The AASHTO stated that if a non-infrastructure project/program meets the HSIP approved criteria, the State DOT should be able to utilize the funds as needed. The Michigan DOT also suggested that the Federal-aid highway program is a State-administered, federally funded program, and the proposed language appears to exceed the boundaries of the Federal role in project selection. The ATSSA expressed disagreement with the use of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects. The GTMA expressed support for the use of HSIP funds to integrate FMCSA and NHTSA crash data into a basemap designed to develop a more comprehensive and strategic approach to safety, including training and other data initiatives to assist in using basemap data to assist in the enforcement of behavioral and FMCSA-related laws. They also expressed their support for the use of HSIP funds for the collection of mobile imaging, LiDAR, retroreflectivity, friction and 3D pavement and bridge deck imaging data. Understanding the need to strike a balance, GTMA encouraged FHWA to put in place strong accounting measures to ensure that any funds transferred from HSIP to other safety or non-safety programs be traceable and that a justification be provided prior to approval. The GTMA strongly supported the proposed provision to require other eligible funding to be used for non-infrastructure projects in order to help maintain programmatic integrity and transparency among the various safety programs. Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming DOTs suggested there be a stronger tie to fund projects and programs that are supported by the SHSP. The FAST Act limits HSIP eligibility to the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B); accordingly, the FHWA removes this provision in the final rule.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes the first sentence of existing paragraph (c) regarding the use of other Federal-aid funds, since this information is repeated in § 924.11 (Implementation) and is better suited for that section. The FHWA also incorporates minor edits to the paragraph to provide more accurate references to the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) Federal-aid programs, and removes references to the Interstate Maintenance (IM), National Highway System (NHS), and Equity Bonus funding sources, since these funding programs have been consolidated into other program areas. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) expressed concerns with the policy that safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project. The CSAC expressed support for the principle that safety should be considered in all Federal-aid projects, yet cautioned that there may be circumstances when a smaller agency would need to use HSIP funding in addition to other funding sources in order to deliver a complete project. Alaska DOT suggested that the proposed changes are less clear and limit flexibility by limiting funding to one type of Federal-aid per project.

    The FHWA's intent is not to limit flexibility, rather to promote the use of all available funding sources to implement safety improvements. In general, it is FHWA's policy that safety improvements/features should be funded with the same source of funds as the primary project. However, FHWA realizes there are some exceptions that may occur on a limited basis, such as when a programmed highway safety improvement project(s) overlaps with a standard road project, or for a designated period of time when a State wishes to advance implementation of an innovative safety countermeasure. The FHWA reiterates that the intent of this provision remains unchanged from the existing HSIP regulation and retains the proposed language.

    Section 924.7 Program Structure

    In paragraph (a), FHWA clarifies the structure of the HSIP, as proposed in the NPRM, by specifying that the HSIP is to include a SHSP, a Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and a program of highway safety improvement projects. As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA believes that listing the three main components will help States better understand the program structure. The GTMA expressed support for this change.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to clarify in paragraph (b) that the HSIP shall include a separate process for planning, implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in § 924.7(a) for all public roads in the State. The North Carolina DOT suggested that the language needed to be clarified if the intent of the revision is to require the HSIP process to cover all public roads versus develop different processes for State maintained and non-State maintained public roads. As a result, FHWA revises the final rule to clarify that the HSIP process shall address all public roads in the State. The FHWA also incorporates minor revisions, as proposed in the NPRM, to require that the processes be developed in cooperation (rather than consultation) with the FHWA Division Administrator and be developed in consultation (rather than cooperatively) with officials of the various units of local and tribal governments; it further adds that other safety stakeholders shall also be consulted, as appropriate. In addition, FHWA clarifies that the processes developed are in accordance with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Finally, FHWA removes the existing last sentence of the regulation that references what the processes may include, since that language is more appropriate for guidance documents, rather than regulation.

    The GTMA supported the revisions in this section with the suggestion that additional stakeholders be included in the definition of “safety stakeholder” in § 924.3.

    Section 924.9 Planning

    As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA reorganizes and revises paragraph (a) so that it reflects the sequence of actions that States should take in the HSIP planning process. As a result of this reorganization, the HSIP planning process now includes six distinct elements, including a separate element for updates to the SHSP, which currently exists under the safety data analysis process. The FHWA also removes existing paragraph (a)(3)(iii) regarding the HRRR program to reflect the change in statute. While there were no public comments regarding the proposed reorganization of paragraph (a), there were comments related to several individual items, which are included in the discussion below along with key revisions to each element of § 924.9(a).

    The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(1) to group data as “safety data,” rather than specifying individual data components and specifies that roadway data shall include MIRE FDE as defined in § 924.17 and railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from the DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. As discussed in the NPRM, MIRE FDE are a basic set of elements an agency would need to conduct enhanced safety analyses regardless of the specific analysis tools used or methods applied and they have the potential to support other safety and infrastructure programs in addition to the HSIP. While Washington State DOT supported including safety data on all public roads, the Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts, Utah, Montana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina, California, and Virginia DOTs all expressed concern with collecting MIRE FDE on all public roads. These DOTs expressed concerns related to collecting data on low volume, unpaved, and tribal lands roads where there are not significant numbers of crashes or safety concerns compared to other roads. The commenters suggested that the time required to collect such data, as well as the associated costs, creates extra burden and resource investments. The GTMA supported the efforts to create a nationwide base map of all public roads and suggested that the MIRE FDE are in line with MAP-21 requirements. The FHWA retains the language for paragraph (a)(1) as proposed in the NPRM, but incorporates substantial changes to the MIRE FDE as discussed below in § 924.17 to address comments expressing concern for the increased cost and burden for collecting data on all public roads.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (a)(2) to clarify that safety data includes all public roads. The FHWA retains the language for paragraph (a)(2) as proposed in the NPRM, with minor editorial changes.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA reorders and combines some of the items formerly in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to reflect the sequence of actions States should take in HSIP planning. The revisions highlight the importance of the SHSP in the HSIP planning process and that it is a separate element. Key revisions, as well as those for which there were significant comments, are discussed herein. The MAP-21 requires FHWA to establish a SHSP update cycle, so FHWA proposed a maximum 5-year update cycle in paragraph (a)(3)(i) to reflect current practice in some States. The FHWA received support for the 5-year update cycle from most of the State DOTs who commented about the update cycle. Washington State DOT supported the 5-year update cycle, but also suggested that some States may desire a shorter update cycle. Therefore, Washington State DOT suggested FHWA provide flexibility to allow States to update their SHSP more frequently. Missouri DOT updates their SHSPs every 4 years and requested similar flexibility in the update requirement. The GTMA suggested that States be required to submit their first SHSP 7 years from the date of enactment of MAP-21 and that subsequent plans be updated every 5 years. The MAP-21 requires States to update their SHSP by August 1st of the fiscal year following the establishment of the update requirements. The FHWA retains the language as proposed in the NPRM noting that the regulation also states, “A SHSP update shall be completed no later than five years from the previous date.” This language allows States to update their SHSPs more frequently than every 5 years, providing flexibility for States who choose more frequent updates.

    Paragraph (a)(3)(iii) proposed the FHWA Division Administrator to approve the update process. Virginia DOT suggested that the requirement for a “process” description and approval should be clarified and recommended that language be added to specify when documentation must be submitted to FHWA for review and approval of a State's SHSP update process. The GTMA suggested that any process review be conducted by the FHWA Administrator's office, not the Division Administrator. Their recommendation is that FHWA Division Administrators should provide guidance in the SHSP development process, and since they are involved in the development then someone else should have responsibility for providing approval. The FHWA retains the language as proposed because the FHWA Division Administrators have been delegated the authority to act on behalf of the Administrator. Further, since the Divisions are involved in the update process, they are in the best position to determine if that process is consistent with MAP-21 requirements.

    To address comments from AASHTO, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Georgia DOTs, as well as GTMA, FHWA revises paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to reflect that the SHSP update shall identify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus resources on areas of greatest need. The FHWA removes the phrase “greatest potential for a rate of return on safety investments,” to address comments suggesting that such language implies preparing project-level cost benefit analyses which are not appropriate at the planning level. The use of the term “rate of return” was not intended to reference a statistical methodology. The GTMA suggested changing the phrase “key features when determining SHSP strategies” in paragraph (a)(3)(vii) to mirror the legislation to read “key factors . . .” The FHWA retains the phrase “key features,” as proposed in the NPRM, because FHWA feels this language to be consistent with the level of detail appropriate for the SHSP.

    To respond to a comment from GTMA requesting clarification on the process and potential resources for implementing strategies in the emphasis areas described in paragraph (a)(3)(xi), FHWA reiterates that this item serves as a basic, high-level description of the process covered in paragraph (a)(4) and does not require a validation process for each project at this level of SHSP planning. For example, some States (such as Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania) include in their SHSP a section that explains how they plan to successfully implement the SHSP. They describe the process for ongoing communication and feedback from SHSP partners, which action items have been identified for each partner, and how the plan will be tracked and monitored. Other States (such as Virginia and Rhode Island) have also included emphasis area plans in their SHSPs, which outline the strategies, related action steps, and the agency responsible for implementing the strategies/steps. States can also discuss potential funding sources to implement the SHSP, such as the HSIP, NHTSA's Section 402 funds, etc. There were no comments regarding the remaining paragraphs within paragraph (a)(3), therefore they are revised as proposed in the NPRM.

    The FHWA revises this item, as proposed in the NPRM, incorporating a suggestion from Kentucky DOT to phrase paragraph (a)(4)(i) to reflect that the purpose of HSIP is to “reduce fatalities and serious injuries” to provide consistent language throughout the regulation. To correspond with changes made in § 924.3, FHWA incorporates minor editorial edits in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) to remove the term “hazard,” replacing it with the term “risk” and deleting the word “grade” from “railway-highway crossings.”

    As stated in the NPRM, paragraph (a)(5) contains no substantial edits.

    The FHWA incorporates minor edits in the final rule to reflect comments from Virginia DOT suggesting that the process for establishing priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects “considers” (rather than “includes”) the sub-items listed. The FHWA believes this revision will provide States with more flexibility in establishing their processes. Given this flexibility, it is important that States conduct a periodic review of their HSIP practices and procedures to identify noteworthy practices and opportunities to advance HSIP implementation efforts.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (b) by changing, adding, and removing references to various legislation for consistency with other sections in this regulation. The FHWA revises the language proposed in the NPRM that clarifies the use of these funding categories is subject to the individual program's eligibility criteria and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding category, to be consistent with Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revised administrative requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.

    In paragraph (c), as proposed in the NPRM, FHWA clarifies that HSIP-funded non-infrastructure safety projects (e.g. transportation safety planning; collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data) shall also be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Planning (STIP) processes consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450. In the NPRM, the FHWA also proposed to add a requirement that States distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in the STIP in order to assist in formalizing the required tracking of the funds programmed on infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects for State and FHWA reporting purposes. Similar to the comments regarding the use of funds for non-infrastructure projects in § 924.5, ATSSA expressed disagreement with the use of HSIP funds for non-infrastructure projects, as did GTMA. The FAST Act limits HSIP eligibility to the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B); accordingly, FHWA removes the proposed language requiring States to distinguish between infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in the STIP.

    Section 924.11 Implementation

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA removes former paragraph (b) describing the 10 percent flex funds and former paragraph (c) describing funding set asides for improvements on high risk rural roads to reflect changes associated with MAP-21.

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed adding new paragraph (b) to require States to incorporate an implementation plan by July 1, 2015, for collecting MIRE FDE in their State's Traffic Records Strategic Plan and that they shall complete collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads by September 30, 2020. The preamble for the NPRM also stated that due to the uncertainty in time periods for publishing rulemakings, it is possible that the dates will be changed to reflect a specific time period based upon the effective date of a final rule for this NPRM. While the Missouri DOT acknowledged that it could have an implementation plan in place by July 1, 2015, many State DOTs and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments stated that the both the July 2015 deadline for an implementation plan and the 5-year deadline for complete collection of MIRE FDE were too aggressive. The AASHTO and California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Missouri DOTs suggested that the proposed September 2020 timeframe for collecting data on all public roads was aggressive and likely not achievable; however, Delaware DOT indicated that they could meet the deadline. The AASHTO, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Vermont DOTs suggested a 10-year timeframe for collecting data would be more appropriate. The GTMA suggested that FHWA amend the language to require complete collection of MIRE FDE on all NHS routes by September 30, 2018, and all public roads by September 30, 2022. The AASHTO suggested that the regulation be modified to allow States to develop an implementation plan that prioritizes the collection of MIRE FDE as resources are made available. Georgia DOT submitted a similar comment.

    The FHWA understands concerns expressed by the commenters. As a result, FHWA revises the final rule language to require States to incorporate specific quantifiable and measureable anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE FDE into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017. The additional 2 years provided in this final rule will give States additional time to coordinate with all relevant entities, including local and tribal agencies, to identify and prioritize MIRE FDE collection efforts. The FHWA also revises the final rule to specify that States shall have access to a complete collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads by September 30, 2026. This change clarifies that States only need to have access to data, rather than to actually collect the data themselves. It also extends the deadline for complete collection of the MIRE FDE on all public roads by 6 years from what was proposed in the NPRM. Based on the NPRM comments described above, FHWA believes that 10 years is adequate to complete collection of the MIRE FDE as revised in this final rule in section 924.17.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adopts new paragraph (c) requiring the SHSP to include actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented.

    In paragraph (d), FHWA removes language regarding specific use of 23 U.S.C. 130(f) funds for railway-highway crossings, because reference to 23 U.S.C. 130 as a whole is more appropriate than specifying just section (f). The FHWA retains language about the Special Rule under 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2) authorizing use of funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 130 for HSIP purposes if a State demonstrates it has met its needs for installation of railway-highway crossing protective devices to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division Administrator, in order to ensure that all States are aware of this provision.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA revises paragraph (g) [formerly paragraph (h)] regarding the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under section 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) to reflect 23 U.S.C. 148(j). The GTMA expressed support for allowing 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130 reimbursement exceptions to be made available for the HSIP. The FHWA removes existing paragraphs (g) and (i) because the regulations are covered elsewhere and therefore do not need to be in this regulation. In particular, existing paragraph (g) is addressed in 23 CFR 450.216, which documents the requirements for the development and content of the STIP, including accounting for safety projects. In addition, existing paragraph (i) regarding implementation of safety projects in accordance with 23 CFR part 630, subpart A, applies to all Federal-aid projects, not just HSIP, and is therefore not necessary in the HSIP regulation.

    The FHWA retains existing paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) with minimal editorial changes. The ATSSA expressed support for paragraph (e) that highway safety improvement projects be implemented with other funds and suggested that care should be taken to ensure that highway safety improvement projects funded with other programs are in addition to projects funded by the HSIP, not instead of. The ATSSA disagreed with the existing provision in paragraph (f) that again allows HSIP funds to be used for non-highway construction projects. These are existing provisions for which FHWA does not adopt any changes, except revisions to be consistent with OMB's revised administrative requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.

    Section 924.13 Evaluation

    The FHWA incorporates the following changes to paragraph (a) regarding the evaluation of the HSIP and SHSP:

    The FHWA proposed to revise paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that the process is to analyze and assess the results achieved by highway safety improvement projects and the Railway-Highway Crossing Program, and not the HSIP as stated in the existing regulation. As stated in the NPRM, this change is consistent with the clarifications to Program Structure, as described in § 924.7. The Delaware and Virginia DOTs and GTMA expressed concern that the evaluation of individual projects could be time intensive without achieving the goal of understanding the overall impact of safety programs. The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(1) to reference the program of highway safety improvement projects, rather than individual projects. Texas DOT requested further details regarding the evaluation process. The FHWA will provide further clarification in guidance, but in general States are required to develop evaluation processes to best meet their individual program needs. Evaluation processes might include an inventory of previously implemented HSIP projects to support safety performance evaluations of individual projects, countermeasures, and the program as a whole. These processes might also specify specific methodologies and available resources to support evaluation. As stated in the NPRM, States currently evaluate highway safety improvement projects to support the evaluation of the HSIP; therefore this clarification does not require States to change their evaluation practices or the way they report their evaluations to FHWA. The FHWA also proposed to revise the outcome of this process to align with the performance targets established under 23 U.S.C. 150 as a requirement in section 1203 of MAP-21, which is the subject of a concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (FHWA-2013-0020 at 79 FR 13846). The FHWA revises the language in the final rule to reflect that contributions to improved safety outcomes are important, as well as attaining performance targets, based on a comment from AASHTO and several State DOTs to emphasize long-term, outcome-oriented focus as well as short-term targets. The process for evaluating achievement toward performance targets is described in more detail in the concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (FHWA-2013-0020 at 79 FR 13846).

    The FHWA revises paragraph (a)(2), as proposed in the NPRM, to clarify that the evaluation of the SHSP is part of the regularly recurring update process that is already required under the current regulations. As part of this change, FHWA removes existing paragraph (a)(2)(i) because ensuring the accuracy and currency of the safety data is part of regular monitoring and tracking efforts. The FHWA revises new paragraph (a)(2)(i) [formerly paragraph (a)(2)(ii)] to reflect that evaluation of the SHSP includes confirming the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies based on analysis of current safety data.

    Finally, in new paragraph (a)(2)(ii) [formerly paragraph (a)(2)(iii)] FHWA clarifies that the SHSP evaluation must identify issues related to the SHSP's implementation and progress that should be considered during each subsequent SHSP update. Subsequent SHSP updates will need to take into consideration the issues experienced in implementing the previous plan and identify methods to overcome those issues. Washington DOT commented that while it recognizes the value in reporting the lessons learned from implementation, it was unsure what was meant in the NPRM preamble by “issues experienced” and “steps taken to overcome,” and suggested that examples would provide greater clarity to what is meant by “issues.” The FHWA will provide further clarification in guidance, but an example of an “issue experienced” could be not meeting a SHSP goal or objective. For instance, if a SHSP emphasis area objective is not met, this may suggest a strategy is ineffective, or in some cases, the strategy may not have been implemented as planned. The State should try to identify why the objective was not met and consider alternatives in their SHSP update.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA incorporates a minor revision to paragraph (b)(1) to specify that safety data used in the planning process is to be updated based on the results of the evaluation under § 924.13(a)(1).

    Finally, FHWA incorporates minor revisions to paragraph (c) to remove references to the STP and NHS [now NHPP], as well as 23 U.S.C. 402 since this is not the primary intent of these programs; removed the reference to 23 U.S.C. 105 since this program was repealed under MAP-21; and replaces the reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(f) with 104(d) to reflect the change in legislation numbering. There were no substantial comments to these revisions in the NPRM.

    The FHWA revises the language in the final rule that clarifies that the use of these funding categories is subject to the individual program's eligibility criteria and the allocation of costs based on the benefit to each funding category to be consistent with OMB's revised administrative requirements and cost principles under 2 CFR part 200.

    Section 924.15 Reporting

    The FHWA removes the requirements for reporting on the HRRR program and the transparency report, as proposed in the NPRM, because MAP-21 removes these reporting requirements.

    The FHWA revises the HSIP report requirements to specify what should be contained in these reports. In paragraph (a), FHWA requires that the report be submitted via the HSIP online reporting tool. The AASHTO, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Texas DOTs all suggested that improvements be made to the online reporting tool. While many supported the principle of submitting reports online, several State DOTs expressed concern with the current functionality of the online reporting tool and suggested that it be improved before use of the tool was mandatory. The State DOTs indicated that there are usability issues with the current tool making it cumbersome to use. Some expressed concern that the tool is error-prone. In addition, States suggested that the security features be improved so that all reviewers and contributors could obtain access.

    The FHWA understands that there have been difficulties with the online reporting tool and will continue to host user group discussions to identify and prioritize future enhancements. The FHWA will also continue training and technical assistance activities to support States HSIP reporting efforts. To respond to comments regarding access to and security of the online report tool, FHWA issued a Memorandum of User Profile and Access Control System (UPACS) Credentials on October 4, 2009,13 to provide States with information regarding FHWA's implementation of e-Authentication as a part of the e-Government initiative to enable trust and confidence in e-Government transactions. In this memorandum, FHWA indicated that, in adherence to the DOT Information Assurance guidance, all State DOT users and MPO users accessing FHWA web-based applications would be required to obtain a Level-2 credential by April 1, 2010. The intent for submitting online reports is to ensure consistent reporting across all States and support national HSIP evaluation efforts. Forty-seven States currently use the HSIP online reporting tool to support the HSIP reporting efforts.

    13 The Memorandum of User Profile and Access Control System (UPACS) Credentials, issued October 4, 2009 can be viewed on the docket for this rulemaking.

    As proposed in the NPRM, FHWA replaces paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) in their entirety. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), FHWA indicates that the report needs to describe the structure of the HSIP, including how HSIP funds are administered in the State, and a summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), FHWA requires that the report describe the process in implementing the highway safety improvement projects and compare the funds programmed in the State transportation improvement program for highway safety improvement projects with those obligated during the reporting year. The FHWA also requires that the report include a list of highway safety improvement projects (and how each relates to the State SHSP) that were obligated during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure projects. There were no substantive comments regarding these changes. The FHWA retains the reference to non-infrastructure projects here since States would still be required to report on HSIP expenditures for those non-infrastructure activities that remain on the inclusions list in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B) (e.g. transportation safety planning; collection, analysis, and improvement of safety data).

    The FHWA reorganizes new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to emphasize the importance of long-term safety outcomes and to clarify safety performance target documentation requirements, consistent with comments received on the NPRM. The AASHTO, Vermont, and Arkansas DOTs suggested that FHWA emphasize the long-term outcome-oriented focus, in addition to annual targets. Virginia DOT commented that the language and requirements of regulations 23 CFR parts 490, 924, and 1200 should be consistent with respect to SHSP and HSIP/HSP target setting. The ATSSA suggested that it might be helpful to clarify the details expected related to safety performance targets. As a result, FHWA separates paragraph (a)(1)(iii) into three parts in the final rule. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) focuses on long-term safety outcomes and requires States to describe general highway safety trends. The FHWA moves all language regarding safety trends to paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of the final rule in order to group similar information together. In addition, FHWA adds a requirement in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) that general highway safety trends for the total number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorized users shall be provided in order to reflect the importance of safety for this user group. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) focuses on documenting the safety performance targets and clarifies that documentation of the safety performance targets shall include a discussion of the basis for each established target, how the established target supports the long-term goals in the SHSP, and for future HSIP reports, any reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets. As proposed in the NPRM for paragraph (a)(1)(iii), the safety performance targets required by 23 U.S.C. 150(d) shall be presented for all public roads by calendar year. Paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(C) focuses on the applicability of the special rules and does not change from the NPRM.

    As proposed in the NPRM, paragraph (a)(1)(iv) requires that the report assess improvements accomplished by describing the effectiveness of highway safety improvement projects implemented under the HSIP. Virginia DOT suggested that this item describe the evaluation and reporting of individual projects and their type grouping based on outcome frequencies because, for example, intersection crash rates are calculated differently from road crash rates. The FHWA does not specify how the States assess or report on the effectiveness of highway safety improvements. States are required to have an evaluation process under 23 CFR 924.13, but have the flexibility to develop that process to best meet their needs.

    Finally, as proposed in the NPRM, FHWA adds a new paragraph (a)(1)(v) to require that the HSIP report be compatible with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d) (Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act) whereas previously only the transparency report was required to be compatible. Washington State DOT expressed concern that some States and local agencies may have difficulty in complying with 29 U.S.C. 794(d), Section 508, and that the burden of meeting this requirement may shift to the reporting agency. As a result, they suggested that FHWA consider providing examples of Section 508 compliant reports on the Web site. The HSIP reports are currently available on FHWA's Web site 14 and are 508 compliant. The HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance 15 describes in detail the DOT Web site requirements. Also, reporting into the HSIP Online Reporting Tool meets all report requirements and DOT Web site requirements.

    14 HSIP reports can be found at the following weblink: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/reports.

    15 HSIP MAP-21 Reporting Guidance can be found at the following weblink: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidehsipreport.cfm.

    There are no changes to the existing regulation regarding the report describing progress to implement railway-highway crossing improvements.

    Section 924.17 MIRE Fundamental Data Elements

    In the NPRM, FHWA proposed to add a new § 924.17 containing the MIRE FDE for the collection of roadway data. The proposed section consisted of two tables of MIRE FDE listing the MIRE name and number for roadway segments, intersections, and interchanges or ramps as appropriate. The tables differentiated the required MIRE FDE for roads with Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) greater than or equal to 400 vehicles per day (Table 1) and roads with AADT less than 400 vehicles per day (Table 2). The FHWA received a significant number of comments regarding the MIRE Fundamental Data Requirements, particularly related to the cost and burden of collecting the data, the required data elements, the requirement to collect data on low-volume roads, and the implementation timeline. Comments related to the implementation timeline are discussed in § 924.11 and comments regarding costs to collect and maintain the data, including comments on FHWA's cost assumptions, are discussed in the Regulatory Analysis section. The following paragraphs describe the remaining docket comments regarding the MIRE FDE. Following the discussion of the docket comments is a description of the changes FHWA adopted in this final rule to address the comments where appropriate.

    Required Data Elements: North Dakota suggested that States should be allowed to determine what data is appropriate for their analysis and how it should be collected. Massachusetts DOT indicated that they had previously attempted a program to define and identify distinct intersections and interchanges and found it to be significantly more challenging than anticipated. Ohio DOT supported the data elements to classify and delineate roadway segments, elements to identify roadway physical characteristics, and elements to identify traffic volume, indicating that these requirements will ensure that States have the necessary data to better target roadway investments with the greatest potential to reduce crashes. Delaware DOT and Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission also supported the required data elements. Arizona, New York, and Texas DOTs, as well as GTMA, suggested additional data elements may be useful such as median/shoulder width, horizontal curve data, speed limit, roadway paved width, median barrier type, shoulder texturing, and centerline texturing, while the League of American Bicyclists and California Walks and Massachusetts DOT suggested that bicycle and pedestrian count information or elements along roadways (bike lanes) or intersections (pedestrian accommodations) be included to help States address crashes associated with non-motorized users. The Virginia DOT echoed those comments, stating that presence/type of bicycle facility (40) and sidewalk presence (51) should be included as data elements that must be collected for urban roadways, stating that this is critical as non-motorized fatalities represent more than 10 percent of all traffic fatalities in Virginia and this information will be important to help analyze and identify safety needs of non-motorized users of the transportation system.

    Local, low volume, and unpaved, gravel, and dirt roads: AASHTO, Arizona, Delaware, Montana, Texas, Utah, and Washington State DOTs expressed concern with the requirement to collect data on all public roads, particularly as it related to local, low volume, and unpaved, gravel, and dirt roads. Arizona DOT and GTMA expressed support for exempting unpaved, gravel, or dirt roads from MIRE FDE requirements. The Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming DOTs stated that there is not sufficient justification for rules that would require expenditure of considerable funds on data collection, particularly data regarding dirt and gravel roads and other low volume rural roads. They commented that scarce funds would be better directed to actual safety projects. Those DOTs suggested that it is unlikely that data elements related to unpaved roads are “critical” to overall safety management; therefore, FHWA should exclude them from the MIRE requirements. Arizona and Georgia DOTs and the Kansas Association of Counties suggested that States be allowed to develop their own methodologies to estimate AADT on local roads.

    As discussed in the NPRM, FHWA includes this section on MIRE FDE to comply with section 1112 of MAP-21 that amends 23 U.S.C. 148 to require model inventory of roadway elements as part of data improvement. As mandated under 23 U.S.C. 148(f)(2), the Secretary of Transportation shall (1) establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements that are useful for the inventory of roadway safety; and (2) ensure that States adopt and use the subset to improve data collection. Considering this requirement in conjunction with the other requirements in 23 U.S.C. 148, FHWA cannot exempt certain roads entirely from the MIRE FDE requirements. Section 148(f)(1) of Title 23 U.S.C. defines a data improvement activity to include a project or activity to develop a basemap of all public roads, as well as safety data collection, including data identified as part of the model inventory of roadway elements, for creating or using on a highway basemap of all public roads in a State. In addition, there is frequent mention of safety data for all public roads throughout section 148 (e.g., 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(2), (a)(9), (c)(2)). If all public roads are to be included in the identification and analysis of highway safety problems and opportunities as required by 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), FHWA believes that States should be able to at least locate all crashes on all public roads with an LRS. Lastly, the general purpose of the HSIP program is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads (23 U.S.C. 148(b)(2)). Because the collection of these inventory elements ultimately supports implementation of the HSIP, it is important that MIRE FDE be collected for all of the roads eligible under the HSIP. To address comments raised during the rulemaking process, FHWA adds a definition for the term “open to public travel” for the purpose of MIRE FDE; changes the categorization of MIRE FDE from AADT to functional classification and surface type; further reduces the MIRE FDE for unpaved roads; and eliminates intersection data elements for local paved roads in the final rule. A brief description of each of these changes is provided below.

    Categorize MIRE FDE requirements for paved roads based on functional classification and surface type, rather than AADT: Several commenters expressed concern about not having AADT (or a good method to estimate AADT) for all public roads, which would make it difficult to determine the applicability of the MIRE FDE requirements using the AADT thresholds proposed in the NPRM. Based on data from a sample of 3 States, FHWA estimates that roughly 72 percent (or 2,941,375 miles) of all public roads have an AADT of less than 400 and would therefore be subject to the FDE requirements proposed in Table 2 of the NPRM. In general, the roads with less than 400 AADT are lower functionally classified roads. According to FHWA Highway Statistics, there were 2,821,867 million miles of roads functionally classified as local roads in the United States in 2011 and 2012. This estimate equates very closely with the estimated miles of roadways subject to the NPRM Table 2 requirements, which were based on AADT estimates. Given the relatively low frequency that actual AADT counts are collected on low volume roads, FHWA changes the criteria for determining if a road is subject to MIRE FDE requirements to the functional classification of the roadway. Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of traffic service that they are intended to provide. There are three major highway functional classifications: arterial, collector, and local roads. Non-local paved roads (e.g., arterials and collectors) would be subject to Table 1 in this final rule; whereas, local functionally classified roads would be subject to the Table 2 MIRE FDE requirements. As illustrated in the Table 3 below, this maintains the approximate proportion of roads that would fall into each category as compared to using a threshold of 400 AADT and will address nearly the same amount of fatalities. As an added advantage, this should be easier for the States to administer. The Table 1 and Table 2 MIRE FDE tables are suggested only for use on paved roads.

    Table 3—Comparison of Mileage and % Total Fatalities on <400 AADT Roads and Roads Classified as Local Roads Roadway classification Mileage % Total
  • fatalities
  • <400 AADT * 72% 17.7 Local Road Functional Classification 69% 19.7 * Estimates are based on data from a sample of three States.

    Create an Unpaved Roads Category: Several commenters expressed concerns with collecting the reduced set of the FDEs proposed in Table 2 of the NPRM on unpaved roads. Their concerns centered around the relative lack of a safety problem on these roads and the difficulty in collecting the information. The AASHTO and many State DOTs suggested that FHWA create a third roadway category for MIRE FDE data collection on unpaved roads. Based on 2011 and 2012 data, unpaved roads accounted for an average of 34.7 percent of U.S. roadway miles (1,395,888 miles).16 Fatality data from the same years indicate that only 2.0 percent of fatalities (655) occurred on these unpaved roads.17 Therefore, the FHWA creates a separate, reduced set of FDEs in Table 3 of the final rule that would be required for any unpaved public road. Table 3 MIRE FDE for unpaved roads in the final rule will require States to locate and identify these roads within the State's LRS per HPMS and to provide the functional classification and roadway ownership, which was required in MAP-21. While the FAST Act includes a provision that would allow States to elect not to collect fundamental data elements for the model inventory of roadway elements on public roads that are gravel roads or otherwise unpaved, the MIRE FDE as defined in this regulation are the minimum subset of the roadway and traffic data elements from FHWA's MIRE that are used to support a State's data-driven safety program. States will still be expected to geospatially locate crashes and the reduced FDEs to these unpaved roadway segments to monitor their safety if they intend to use HSIP funds on these roads.

    16http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_04.html.

    17http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

    Eliminate Intersection FDEs for Local Roads: Some commenters suggested that the burden to collect local road intersection data was greater than the benefit, since they would likely not use the predictive analysis methods for these facilities. From 2011-2012 there was an average of 1,117 intersection or intersection-related fatalities on roads functionally classified as “local.” 18 This constitutes approximately 3.4 percent of the annual average total (32,739) for all fatalities during this time period. Network screening for these low traffic volume roads can be performed using system-wide or corridor level analyses that combine (but do not distinguish) roadway segment, intersection, and ramp crashes. Corridor-level network screening would identify “intersection” hot spots, as well, and then an agency could collect specific roadway data relative to that location as needed. Therefore, given the ability to identify intersection problems through corridor-level analysis, FHWA eliminates the MIRE FDE requirement for local intersections, reducing the number of required data elements in Table 2 of the final rule from 14 to 9.

    18http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

    The proposed changes discussed above will significantly reduce the data collection burden on States as summarized in Table 4 below. The number of miles of non-local roads for which Table 1 in the final rule applies is approximately 8,000 miles less than proposed in the NPRM. Table 2 of the final rule applies to nearly 1.5 million fewer miles of roads and the number of data elements for those roadway miles is reduced from 14 elements to 9 elements. Table 3, which was not included in the NPRM, includes approximately 1.4 million miles of unpaved roads with only 5 data elements, comprised of name, classification, ownership and length, which does not require additional collection of data. As a result, the final rule includes three tables: Table 1—MIRE FDE for Non-Local (based on functional classification) Paved Roads, Table 2—MIRE FDE for Local (based on functional classification) Paved Roads, and Table 3—MIRE FDE for Unpaved Roads. The FHWA incorporates these changes to address comments regarding the need to reduce the burden on States while maintaining the minimum roadway data needed to make better safety investment decisions.

    Table 4—Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule—Required MIRE FDE and Roadway Mileage Variable Rulemaking phase Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table Categorization NPRM >400 AADT <400 AADT N/A. Final Rule Non-local Paved Roads Local Paved Roads Unpaved Roads. MIRE FDE elements NRPM 37 14 N/A. Final Rule 37 9 5. Roadway Mileage NPRM 1,143,868 2,941,375 N/A. Final Rule 1,135,751 1,553,604 1,395,888. Summary of changes from NPRM to Final Rule Changed categorization from >400 AADT to Non-Local Paved Roads Changed categorization from <400 AADT to local paved roads and eliminated intersection elements Created a separate category of MIRE FDE for unpaved roads.

    To address the comments suggesting additional data elements, FHWA suggests that the MIRE FDE included in this final rule are the minimum roadway elements required to conduct system-wide network screening. States may choose to collect additional elements as needed to support system-wide or site-specific analysis. In addition, FHWA does not require a specific method for traffic volume data collection. Agencies may use a methodology that best meets the needs of the State.

    Rulemaking Analysis and Notices

    The FHWA considered all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above, and the comments are available for examination in the docket (FHWA-2013-0019) at Regulations.gov. The FHWA also considered comments received after the comment closing date and filed in the docket prior to the publication of this final rule. The FHWA also considered the HSIP provisions of the FAST Act in the development of this final rule. The FHWA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to incorporate the provisions of the FAST Act without the need for further notice and comment. The FHWA believes additional public comment would be unnecessary as the FAST Act provisions are not discretionary and update the regulation to reflect current law. Specifically, FHWA removes the provision that required FHWA to assess the extent to which other eligible funding programs are programmed for non-infrastructure projects prior to using HSIP funds for these purposes in this final rule since FAST limited eligibility to those items specifically listed in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B).

    Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FHWA has determined that this proposed action is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures due to the significant public interest in regulations related to traffic safety. It is anticipated that the economic impact of this rulemaking will not be economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 as discussed below. This action complies with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to improve regulation.

    While MAP-21 resulted in requiring the Secretary to establish three requirements (i.e., MIRE FDE, SHSP update cycle and HSIP report content and schedule), FHWA based the economic analysis in the NPRM on the costs associated with the MIRE FDE only. Because States are already required to update their SHSP on a regular basis, and the proposal for States to update their SHSP at least every 5 years is consistent with current practice, FHWA expects any costs associated with updating the SHSP will be minimal. Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington State DOTs agreed that at least a 5-year SHSP update cycle is appropriate and will not create an undue financial burden on the State. Therefore, this assumption remains valid. The FHWA did not propose any changes to the report schedule or frequency in the NPRM. There were only minor changes to the report content related to safety performance targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) and FHWA believed that any associated costs would be offset by the elimination of the transparency report requirements. Further, the actual cost to establish the safety performance target is accounted for in the concurrent rulemaking for safety performance measures (Docket number FHWA-13-0020). There were no comments related to the HSIP report content or associated costs. Since the SHSP update schedule and report content and schedule requirements do not change from the NPRM to the final rule and the comments did not suggest otherwise, the economic analysis for the final rule is based on the MIRE FDE costs only.

    The MIRE FDE costs in the NPRM were based on the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost Estimation Report” dated March 2013.19 The cost estimates developed as part of that report reflected the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through HPMS or not already being collected for other purposes. The cost estimate used in the NRPM did not include the cost of analyzing the MIRE FDE and performance measure data. The FHWA received comments from AASHTO, California, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington State, and Wyoming DOTs as well as the CSAC, Shasta (California) Regional Transportation Agency, and the Mid-America Regional Council MPO suggesting that the costs for collecting the required data would place a burden on their agencies. While many of the commenters expressed general support for the need for data to enhance safety programs, Massachusetts, Montana, and Washington State DOT, commented that the expenditures in collecting this data at the statewide level for all public roads would not be offset by the benefits and would divert funding away from other critical elements of their programs. Arizona DOT suggested that there is potentially more benefit by implementing systemic safety measures on many of the low volume public roads than in MIRE FDE data collection. Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming DOTs all suggested that the costs to collect MIRE FDE would be extensive and likely exceed the cost estimated by FHWA. However, only Washington State DOT provided actual cost information. The cost information the commenters provided was used as additional input to the revised “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation Report” dated March 2015.20

    19 “MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,” FHWA Report number: FHWA-SA-13-018, published March 2013 is available on the docket for this rulemaking and at the following Internet Web site: http://safety.fhwa.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/downloads/mire_fde_%20cbe_finalreport_032913.pdf.

    20 “MIRE Fundamental Data Element Cost-Benefit Estimation,” dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.

    Based on the comments received in the NPRM, FHWA updated the cost-benefit estimation to reflect: (1) the revisions to the category of roadways and the respective MIRE FDEs to be collected on those roadways, (2) a greater period of time for States to collect the information on those three categories of roadway, and (3) additional cost considerations (e.g., formatting and analyzing MIRE FDE data). The “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” report dated March 2015,21 reflects these updates and estimates the potential cost to States in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDE for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS or not already being collected through other efforts. The MIRE FDE Cost-Benefit Estimation Report reflects the total cost for States to collect the MIRE FDE on all public roads, including unpaved roads. While the FAST Act includes a provision that would allow States to elect not to collect fundamental data elements for the model inventory of roadway elements on public roads that are gravel roads or otherwise unpaved, this report includes the cost to collect the MIRE FDE on unpaved roads because they would still be required to meet the full needs of the States' HSIP.

    21 Ibid.

    With the passage of MAP-21, States are required to collect data on all public roads, including non-Federal-aid roads. To initiate this process, States need to develop a common statewide relational LRS on all public roads that is linkable with crash data, as required by 23 CFR 1.5 and described in recent FHWA guidance 22 issued on August 7, 2012. Based on this criterion, the report estimated that the cost of developing a statewide LRS beginning in June 2015 and concluding in June 2016 would be $32,897,622 nationally over this time period. This would equate to a cost of approximately $645,051 for each State and the District of Columbia to develop a relational LRS over the 12-month period. The data collection for an average State is $1,546,169 for the initial collection and $5,235,097 for the management, administration, maintenance and miscellaneous costs over the analysis period of 2015-2035 (in 2014 U.S. dollars). These are average costs on a per State basis discounted at 7 percent. As such, across the 50 States and the District of Columbia, it is possible that the aggregate cost for initial data collection would be approximately $79 million over 10 years and the total maintenance, management, administration and miscellaneous costs would approach $267 million over the 20-year analysis period.

    22 Guidance Memorandum on Geospatial Network for all Public Roads, issued August 7, 2012, can be viewed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/arnold.pdf.

    Table 5 displays the comparison of estimated total national costs between the estimates provided in the NPRM and updated based on the revised analysis for the final rule. The analysis period for the NPRM assumed a 16-year analysis period (2013-2029). Based on the comments received, FHWA revised the data collection time period and extended the analysis over a 20-year period (2015-2035). Even though States are required to collect fewer data elements as compared to those proposed in the NPRM, the MIRE FDE costs for the final rule are higher than the NPRM, as illustrated in Table 5 below. Based on the comments received, FHWA revised the LRS cost to include a sliding scale based on roadway mileage, revised the baseline data collection assumptions to reflect the most recent HPMS data, added costs to develop a model to estimate traffic volumes, added costs for data quality assurance and control, and added costs for other miscellaneous activities including developing an implementation plan, using a local partner liaison, formatting and analyzing data, and supporting desktop and Web applications. In addition, baseline costs were inflated to 2014 dollars and the analysis period was extended from 16 to 20 years to accommodate the extended timeframe for data collection. The FHWA believes that this is a more accurate representation of the costs States can expect to incur to successfully collect and use the MIRE FDE.

    Table 5—Comparison of NPRM and Final Rule Total Estimated National Costs for MIRE FDE [2014 dollars] Cost components Total national costs
  • (2014 dollars)
  • NRPM *
  • undiscounted
  • Final rule **
  • undiscounted
  • Cost of Section 924.17: Linear Referencing System (LRS) $17,614,763 $34,010,102 Initial Data Collection 54,330,783 113,395,680 Roadway Segments 38,767,525 68,879,288 Intersections 8,465,017 2,161,256 Interchange/Ramp locations 850,872 1,057,984 Volume Collection 6,247,369 41,297,152 Maintenance of data system 158,320,508 65,683,740 Management & administration of data system 3,524,952 6,410,685 Miscellaneous Costs N/A 439,585,598 Total Cost 233,791,005 659,085,805 * NRPM analysis period—2013 through 2029. ** Final rule analysis period—2015 through 2035.

    The MAP-21 and FAST provides States the framework to achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Furthermore, MAP-21 required States to report on their safety performance in relation to the national safety performance measures in 23 U.S.C. 150(e). The collection of the MIRE FDE information will enhance States ability to:

    • Develop quantifiable annual performance targets.

    • Develop a strategy for identifying and programming projects and activities that allow the State to meet the performance targets.

    • Conduct data analyses supporting the identification and evaluation of proposed countermeasures.

    The benefits of this rulemaking can have a significant impact on improving safety on our Nation's roads, because collecting this roadway and traffic data and integrating those data into the safety analysis process will improve an agency's ability to locate problem areas and apply appropriate countermeasures, hence improving safety. More effective safety investments yield more lives saved and injuries avoided per dollar invested.

    The benefits of this rule would be the monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and implemented using the proposed MIRE FDE minus the forgone monetized value of the crashes, fatalities, serious injuries, and property damage avoided by the projects identified and implemented using the current data and methods used by the States to allocate safety resources. The FHWA did not endeavor to estimate the benefits in this way for the NPRM, and did not receive any comments on how such benefits could be estimated. Therefore, FHWA continued use of a break-even analysis for the final rule cost estimate.

    The “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” 23 dated May 13, 2013, report calculated the benefits by estimating the reduction in fatalities and injuries needed to exceed a 1:1 ratio and a 10:1 ratio of benefits to costs. The 10:1 ratio was added following the NPRM since North Carolina DOT commented that the break-even analysis using a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio was too low to show the benefits of the added data collection efforts. Table 6 summarizes these needed benefits. The report used the 2014 comprehensive cost of a fatality of $9,300,000 and $109,800 for an injury, based on the value of a statistical life.24 The injury costs used in the report reflects the average injury costs based on the national distribution of injuries in the General Estimate System (GES) using a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale.

    23 “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,” dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.

    24 “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, 2014 Update. http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL_Guidance_2014.pdf.

    Table 6—Estimated Benefits Needed To Achieve Cost-Benefit Ratios of 1:1 and 10:1 [2015-2035 Analysis period, discounted at 7%] Benefits Number of lives saved/injuries
  • avoided nationally
  • Benefit/Cost
  • ratio of 1:1
  • Benefit/Cost
  • ratio of 10:1
  • # of lives saved (fatalities) 76 763 # of injuries avoided 5,020 50,201

    The report estimates that a reduction of 1 fatality and 98 injuries by each State over the 2015-2035 analysis period would be needed to result in a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1. To achieve a benefit/cost ratio of 10:1, each State would need to reduce fatalities by 15 and injuries by 984 over the same analysis period. The experiences to date in States that are already collecting and using roadway data comparable to the MIRE FDE suggests there is a very high likelihood that the benefits of collecting and using the proposed MIRE FDE will outweigh the costs.

    For example, one study on the effectiveness of the HSIP found: 25

    25 Wu, K.-F., Himes, S.C., and Pietrucha, M.T., “Evaluation of Effectiveness of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program,” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2318, pp. 23-34, 2013.

    The magnitude of States' fatal crash reduction was highly associated with the years of available crash data, prioritizing method, and use of roadway inventory data. Moreover, States that prioritized hazardous sites by using more detailed roadway inventory data and the empirical Bayes method had the greatest reductions; all of those States relied heavily on the quality of crash data system.”

    For example, this study cites Colorado's safety improvements, noting “Deployment of advanced methods on all projects and acquisition of high-quality data may explain why Colorado outperformed the rest of the country in reduction of fatal crashes.” 26 Illinois was also high on this study's list of States with the highest percentage reduction in fatalities. In a case study of Illinois' use of AASHTO Highway Safety Manual methods, an Illinois DOT official noted that use of these methods “requires additional roadway data, but has improved the sophistication of safety analyses in Illinois resulting in better decisions to allocate limited safety resources.” 27 Another case study of Ohio's adoption of a tool to apply the roadway safety management methods described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual concluded, “In Ohio, one of the benefits of applying various HSM screening methods was identifying ways to overcome some of the limitations of existing practices. For example, the previous mainframe methodology typically over-emphasized urban “sites of promise”—locations identified for further investigation and potential countermeasure implementation. These locations were usually in the largest urban areas, often with a high frequency of crashes that were low in severity. Now, several screening methods can be used in the network screening process resulting in greater identification of rural corridors and projects. This identification enables Ohio's safety program to address more factors contributing to fatal and injury crashes across the State, instead of being limited to high-crash locations in urban areas, where crashes often result in minor or no injuries.” 28 Another document quantified these benefits, indicating that the number of fatalities per identified mile is 67 percent higher, the number of serious injuries per mile is 151 percent higher, and the number of total crashes is 105 percent higher with these new methods than with their former methods.29 In summary, all three States experienced benefits to the effectiveness of safety investment decisionmaking through the use of methods that included roadway data akin to the MIRE FDE and crash data in their highway safety analyses.

    26 Ibid.

    27 Highway Safety Manual Case Study 4: Development of Safety Performance Functions for Network Screening in Illinois. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/il_cstd.cfm.

    28 Highway Safety Manual Case Study 2: Implementing a New Roadway Safety Management Process with SafetyAnalyst in Ohio. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/casestudies/oh_cstd.cfm.

    29 Hughes, J. and Council, F.M., “How Good Data Lead to Better Safety Decisions,” ITE Journal, April 2012.

    Between 2008 and 2012, on average 35,157 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, and an estimated 2.23 million people were injured.30 31 The decrease in fatalities needed to achieve a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio would represent a 0.2 percent reduction of annual fatalities using the average 2008-2012 statistics. These statistics and the experiences to date in States already collecting and using roadway data comparable to MIRE FDE as cited above suggest that the benefits of collecting and using the MIRE will far outweigh the costs. For example, if each State and the District of Columbia reduced fatalities by two each because of improved decisionmaking due to enhanced data capabilities, the economic impact (savings) would approach $938,400,000. The FHWA believes that the MIRE FDE, in combination with crash data, will support more cost-effective safety investment decisions and ultimately yield greater reductions in fatalities and serious injuries per dollar invested.

    30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—Fatality Analysis Reporting System: can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS.

    31 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES): can be accessed at the following Internet Web site: http://www.nhtsa.gov/NASS.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), FHWA has evaluated the effects of these changes on small entities and anticipates that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule addresses the HSIP. As such, it affects only States, and States are not included in the definition of small entity set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601. Therefore, the RFA does not apply, and I hereby certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The FHWA has evaluated this final rule for unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995). As part of this evaluation, FHWA has determined that this action will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of greater than $128.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The FHWA bases their analysis on the “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation” report.32 The objective of this report was to estimate the potential cost to States in developing a statewide LRS and collecting the MIRE FDE for the purposes of implementing the HSIP on all public roadways. The cost estimates developed as part of this report reflect the additional costs that a State would incur based on what is not being collected through the HPMS, or not already being collected through other efforts. The funds used to establish a data collection system, collect initial data, and maintain annual data collection are reimbursable to the States through the HSIP program.

    32 “MIRE Fundamental Data Elements Cost-Benefit Estimation,” dated May 13, 2015, is available on the docket for this rulemaking.

    Further, the definition of “Federal Mandate” in the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act excludes financial assistance of the type in which State, local, or tribal governments have authority to adjust their participation in the program in accordance with changes made in the program by the Federal Government. The Federal-aid highway program permits this type of flexibility.

    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 dated August 4, 1999. The FHWA has determined that this action would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. The FHWA has also determined that this rulemaking would not preempt any State law or State regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions.

    Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and would not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The FHWA has determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211 is not required.

    Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB prior to conducting or sponsoring a “collection of information.” The FHWA has OMB approval under “Highway Safety Improvement Programs” (OMB Control No: 2125-0025) to collect the information required by State's annual HSIP reports. The FHWA recently received an extension to the Information Collection Request, with a new expiration date of May 31, 2017,33 in order to reflect the MAP-21 requirements reflected in this final rule.

    33 The Information Collection Request can be viewed at the following weblink: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201308-2125-002.

    Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this action would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    The FHWA does not anticipate that this action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that it would not have any effect on the quality of the environment and meets the criteria for the categorical exclusion at 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20).

    Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. The FHWA has determined that this rule does not raise and environmental justice issues.

    Regulation Identifier Number

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.

    List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 924

    Highway safety, Highways and roads, Motor vehicles, Railroads, Railroad safety, Safety, Transportation.

    Issued on: March 2, 2016. Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA revises title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, part 924 to read as follows: PART 924—HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Sec. 924.1 Purpose. 924.3 Definitions. 924.5 Policy. 924.7 Program structure. 924.9 Planning. 924.11 Implementation. 924.13 Evaluation. 924.15 Reporting. 924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements. Authority:

    23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3), 130, 148, 150, and 315; 49 CFR 1.85.

    § 924.1 Purpose.

    The purpose of this regulation is to prescribe requirements for the development, implementation, and evaluation of a highway safety improvement program (HSIP) in each State.

    § 924.3 Definitions.

    Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. In addition, the following definitions apply:

    Hazard index formula means any safety or crash prediction formula used for determining the relative risk at railway-highway crossings, taking into consideration weighted factors, and severity of crashes.

    Highway means:

    (1) A road, street, or parkway and all associated elements such as a right-of-way, bridge, railway-highway crossing, tunnel, drainage structure, sign, markings, guardrail, protective structure, etc.;

    (2) A roadway facility as may be required by the United States Customs and Immigration Services in connection with the operation of an international bridge or tunnel; and

    (3) A facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A).

    Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) means a State safety program with the purpose to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 130, 148, and 150, including the development of a data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and program of highway safety improvement projects.

    Highway safety improvement project means strategies, activities, or projects on a public road that are consistent with a State SHSP and that either correct or improve a hazardous road segment, location, or feature, or addresses a highway safety problem. Examples of projects are described in 23 U.S.C. 148(a).

    MIRE Fundamental data elements mean the minimum subset of the roadway and traffic data elements from the FHWA's Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE) that are used to support a State's data-driven safety program.

    Public railway-highway crossing means a railway-highway crossing where the roadway (including associated sidewalks, pathways, and shared use paths) is under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel, including non-motorized users. All roadway approaches must be under the jurisdiction of a public roadway authority, and no roadway approach may be on private property.

    Public road means any highway, road, or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority and open to public travel, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land.

    Reporting year means a 1-year period defined by the State, unless noted otherwise in this section. It may be the Federal fiscal year, State fiscal year, or calendar year.

    Railway-highway crossing protective devices means those traffic control devices in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) specified for use at such crossings; and system components associated with such traffic control devices, such as track circuit improvements and interconnections with highway traffic signals.

    Road safety audit means a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent multidisciplinary audit team for improving road safety for all users.

    Safety data includes, but are not limited to, crash, roadway characteristics, and traffic data on all public roads. For railway-highway crossings, safety data also includes the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data.

    Safety stakeholder means, but is not limited to:

    (1) A highway safety representative of the Governor of the State;

    (2) Regional transportation planning organizations and metropolitan planning organizations, if any;

    (3) Representatives of major modes of transportation;

    (4) State and local traffic enforcement officials;

    (5) A highway-rail grade crossing safety representative of the Governor of the State;

    (6) Representatives conducting a motor carrier safety program under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 of title 49, U.S.C.;

    (7) Motor vehicle administration agencies;

    (8) County transportation officials;

    (9) State representatives of non-motorized users; and

    (10) Other Federal, State, tribal, and local safety stakeholders.

    Spot safety improvement means an improvement or set of improvements that is implemented at a specific location on the basis of location-specific crash experience or other data-driven means.

    Strategic highway safety plan (SHSP) means a comprehensive, multiyear, data-driven plan developed by a State department of transportation (DOT) in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148.

    Systemic safety improvement means a proven safety countermeasure(s) that is widely implemented based on high-risk roadway features that are correlated with particular severe crash types.

    § 924.5 Policy.

    (a) Each State shall develop, implement, and evaluate on an annual basis a HSIP that has the objective to significantly reduce fatalities and serious injuries resulting from crashes on all public roads.

    (b) HSIP funds shall be used for highway safety improvement projects that are consistent with the State's SHSP. HSIP funds should be used to maximize opportunities to advance highway safety improvement projects that have the greatest potential to reduce the State's roadway fatalities and serious injuries.

    (c) Safety improvements should also be incorporated into projects funded by other Federal-aid programs, such as the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Safety improvements that are provided as part of a broader Federal-aid project should be funded from the same source as the broader project.

    (d) Eligibility for Federal funding of projects for traffic control devices under this part is subject to a State or local/tribal jurisdiction's substantial conformance with the National MUTCD or FHWA-approved State MUTCDs and supplements in accordance with part 655, subpart F, of this chapter.

    § 924.7 Program structure.

    (a) The HSIP shall include:

    (1) A SHSP;

    (2) A Railway-Highway Crossing Program; and

    (3) A program of highway safety improvement projects.

    (b) The HSIP shall address all public roads in the State and include separate processes for the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the HSIP components described in paragraph (a) of this section. These processes shall be developed by the States in cooperation with the FHWA Division Administrator in accordance with this section and the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 148. Where appropriate, the processes shall be developed in consultation with other safety stakeholders and officials of the various units of local and Tribal governments.

    § 924.9 Planning.

    (a) The HSIP planning process shall incorporate:

    (1) A process for collecting and maintaining safety data on all public roads. Roadway data shall include, at a minimum, the MIRE Fundamental Data Elements as established in § 924.17. Railway-highway crossing data shall include all fields from the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory.

    (2) A process for advancing the State's capabilities for safety data collection and analysis by improving the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of their safety data on all public roads.

    (3) A process for updating the SHSP that identifies and analyzes highway safety problems and opportunities in accordance with 23 U.S.C.148. A SHSP update shall:

    (i) Be completed no later than 5 years from the date of the previous approved version;

    (ii) Be developed by the State DOT in consultation with safety stakeholders;

    (iii) Provide a detailed description of the update process. The update process must be approved by the FHWA Division Administrator;

    (iv) Be approved by the Governor of the State or a responsible State agency official that is delegated by the Governor;

    (v) Adopt performance-based goals that:

    (A) Are consistent with safety performance measures established by FHWA in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150; and

    (B) Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs;

    (vi) Analyze and make effective use of safety data to address safety problems and opportunities on all public roads and for all road users;

    (vii) Identify key emphasis areas and strategies that have the greatest potential to reduce highway fatalities and serious injuries and focus resources on areas of greatest need;

    (viii) Address engineering, management, operations, education, enforcement, and emergency services elements of highway safety as key features when determining SHSP strategies;

    (ix) Consider the results of State, regional, local, and tribal transportation and highway safety planning processes and demonstrate mutual consultation among partners in the development of transportation safety plans;

    (x) Provide strategic direction for other State and local/tribal transportation plans, such as the HSIP, the Highway Safety Plan, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan; and

    (xi) Describe the process and potential resources for implementing strategies in the emphasis areas.

    (4) A process for analyzing safety data to:

    (i) Develop a program of highway safety improvement projects, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2), to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of a comprehensive program of systemic and spot safety improvement projects.

    (ii) Develop a Railway-Highway Crossings program that:

    (A) Considers the relative risk of public railway-highway crossings based on a hazard index formula;

    (B) Includes onsite inspection of public railway-highway crossings; and

    (C) Results in a program of highway safety improvement projects at railway-highway crossings giving special emphasis to the statutory requirement that all public crossings be provided with standard signing and markings.

    (5) A process for conducting engineering studies (such as road safety audits and other safety assessments or reviews) to develop highway safety improvement projects.

    (6) A process for establishing priorities for implementing highway safety improvement projects that considers:

    (i) The potential reduction in fatalities and serious injuries;

    (ii) The cost effectiveness of the projects and the resources available; and

    (iii) The priorities in the SHSP.

    (b) The planning process of the HSIP may be financed with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) and 505, and, where applicable in metropolitan planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The eligible use of the program funding categories listed for HSIP planning efforts is subject to that program's eligibility requirements and cost allocation procedures as per 2 CFR part 200.

    (c) Highway safety improvement projects, including non-infrastructure safety projects, to be funded under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be carried out as part of the Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 and 23 CFR part 450.

    § 924.11 Implementation.

    (a) The HSIP shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of § 924.9.

    (b) States shall incorporate specific quantifiable and measurable anticipated improvements for the collection of MIRE fundamental data elements into their Traffic Records Strategic Plan by July 1, 2017. States shall have access to a complete collection of the MIRE fundamental data elements on all public roads by September 30, 2026.

    (c) The SHSP shall include or be accompanied by actions that address how the SHSP emphasis area strategies will be implemented.

    (d) Funds set-aside for the Railway-Highway Crossings Program under 23 U.S.C. 130 shall be used to implement railway-highway crossing safety projects on any public road. If a State demonstrates that it has met its needs for the installation of railway-highway crossing protective devices to the satisfaction of the FHWA Division Administrator, the State may use funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 130 for other types of highway safety improvement projects pursuant to the special rule in 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(2).

    (e) Highway safety improvement projects may also be implemented with other funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 104(b) subject to the eligibility requirements applicable to each program.

    (f) Award of contracts for highway safety improvement projects shall be in accordance with 23 CFR parts 635 and 636, where applicable, for highway construction projects, 23 CFR part 172 for engineering and design services contracts related to highway construction projects, or 2 CFR part 200 for non-highway construction projects.

    (g) Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120 and 130, the Federal share of the cost of a highway safety improvement project carried out with funds apportioned to a State under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) shall be 90 percent.

    § 924.13 Evaluation.

    (a) The HSIP evaluation process shall include:

    (1) A process to analyze and assess the results achieved by the program of highway safety improvement projects in terms of contributions to improved safety outcomes and the attainment of safety performance targets established as per 23 U.S.C. 150.

    (2) An evaluation of the SHSP as part of the regularly recurring update process to:

    (i) Confirm the validity of the emphasis areas and strategies based on analysis of current safety data; and

    (ii) Identify issues related to the SHSP's process, implementation, and progress that should be considered during each subsequent SHSP update.

    (b) The information resulting from paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be used:

    (1) To update safety data used in the planning process in accordance with § 924.9;

    (2) For setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects;

    (3) For assessing the overall effectiveness of the HSIP; and

    (4) For reporting required by § 924.15.

    (c) The evaluation process may be financed with funds made available under 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3) and 505, and, for metropolitan planning areas, 23 U.S.C. 104(d). The eligible use of the program funding categories listed for HSIP evaluation efforts is subject to that program's eligibility requirements and cost allocation procedures as per 2 CFR part 200.

    § 924.15 Reporting.

    (a) For the period of the previous reporting year, each State shall submit, via FHWA's HSIP online reporting tool, to the FHWA Division Administrator no later than August 31 of each year, the following reports related to the HSIP in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(h) and 130(g):

    (1) A report describing the progress being made to implement the HSIP that:

    (i) Describes the structure of the HSIP. This section shall:

    (A) Describe how HSIP funds are administered in the State; and

    (B) Provide a summary of the methodology used to develop the programs and projects being implemented under the HSIP on all public roads.

    (ii) Describes the progress in implementing highway safety improvement projects. This section shall:

    (A) Compare the funds programmed in the STIP for highway safety improvement projects and those obligated during the reporting year; and

    (B) Provide a list of highway safety improvement projects that were obligated during the reporting year, including non-infrastructure projects. Each project listed shall identify how it relates to the State SHSP.

    (iii) Describes the progress in achieving safety outcomes and performance targets. This section shall:

    (A) Provide an overview of general highway safety trends. General highway safety trends shall be presented by number and rate of fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads by calendar year, and to the maximum extent practicable, shall also be presented by functional classification and roadway ownership. General highway safety trends shall also be presented for the total number of fatalities and serious injuries for non-motorized users;

    (B) Document the safety performance targets established in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150 for the following calendar year. Documentation shall also include a discussion of the basis for each established target, and how the established target supports SHSP goals. In future years, documentation shall also include a discussion of any reasons for differences in the actual outcomes and targets; and

    (C) Present information related to the applicability of the special rules defined in 23 U.S.C. 148(g).

    (iv) Assesses the effectiveness of the improvements. This section shall describe the effectiveness of groupings or similar types of highway safety improvement projects previously implemented under the HSIP.

    (v) Is compatible with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 794(d), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

    (2) A report describing progress being made to implement railway-highway crossing improvements in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(g) and the effectiveness of these improvements.

    (b) The preparation of the State's annual reports may be financed with funds made available through 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(3).

    § 924.17 MIRE fundamental data elements.

    The MIRE fundamental data elements shall be collected on all public roads, as listed in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this section. For the purpose of MIRE fundamental data elements applicability, the term open to public travel is consistent with 23 CFR 460.2(c).

    Table 1—MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Non-Local (Based on Functional Classification) Paved Roads MIRE name (MIRE No.) 1 Roadway segment Intersection Segment Identifier (12) Unique Junction Identifier (120). Route Number (8) 2 Location Identifier for Road 1 Crossing Point (122). Route/street Name (9) 2 Location Identifier for Road 2 Crossing Point (123). Federal Aid/Route Type (21) 2 Intersection/Junction Geometry (126). Rural/Urban Designation (20) 2 Intersection/Junction Traffic Control (131). Surface Type (23) 2 AADT (79) [for Each Intersecting Road]. Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10) 2 AADT Year (80) [for Each Intersecting Road]. End Point Segment Descriptor (11) 2 Segment Length (13) 2 Direction of Inventory (18) Unique Approach Identifier (139). Functional Class (19) 2 Median Type (54) Access Control (22) 2 One/Two-Way Operations (91) 2 Interchange/Ramp. Number of Through Lanes (31) 2 Unique Interchange Identifier (178). Average Annual Daily Traffic (79) 2 Location Identifier for Roadway at Beginning Ramp Terminal (197). AADT Year (80) 2 Location Identifier for Roadway at Ending Ramp Terminal (201). Type of Governmental Ownership (4) 2 Ramp Length (187). Roadway Type at Beginning Ramp Terminal (195). Roadway Type at Ending Ramp Terminal (199). Interchange Type (182). Ramp AADT (191).2 Year of Ramp AADT (192).2 Functional Class (19).2 Type of Governmental Ownership (4).2 1Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf. 2 Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals. Table 2—MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Local (Based on Functional Classification) Paved Roads MIRE name (MIRE No.) 1 Roadway segment: Segment Identifier (12). Functional Class (19).2 Surface Type (23).2 Type of Governmental Ownership (4).2 Number of Through Lanes (31).2 Average Annual Daily Traffic (79).2 Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10).2 End Point Segment Descriptor (11).2 Rural/Urban Designation (20).2 1Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf. 2 Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals. Table 3—MIRE Fundamental Data Elements for Unpaved Roads MIRE name (MIRE No.) 1 Roadway segment: Segment Identifier (12). Functional Class (19).2 Type of Governmental Ownership (4).2 Begin Point Segment Descriptor (10).2 End Point Segment Descriptor (11).2 1Model Inventory of Roadway Elements—MIRE, Version 1.0, Report No. FHWA-SA-10-018, October 2010, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/data_tools/mirereport/mirereport.pdf. 2 Highway Performance Monitoring System full extent elements are required on all Federal-aid highways and ramps located within grade-separated interchanges, i.e., National Highway System (NHS) and all functional systems excluding rural minor collectors and locals.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05190 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in April 2016 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the second quarter of 2016. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

    DATES:

    Effective April 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 regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and 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 regulations are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

    The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. 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 asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for April 2016 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the second quarter (April through June) of 2016.

    The second quarter 2016 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 2.77 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.86 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the first quarter of 2016, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.05 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.09 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).

    The April 2016 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.00 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 March 2016, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise 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 valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during April 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 29 CFR Part 4022

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

    29 CFR Part 4044

    Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are 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, Rate Set 270, as set forth below, is added to the table. 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
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 270 4-1-16 5-1-16 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 270, as set forth below, is added to the table. 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
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 270 4-1-16 5-1-16 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.

    5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for April-June 2016, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used To Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— The values of i t are: i t for t = i t for t = i t for t = *         *         *         *         *         *         * April-June 2016 0.0277 1-20 0.0286 >20 N/A N/A
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 9th day of March 2016. Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05733 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 33 CFR Part 401 [Docket No. SLSDC-2016-0004] RIN 2135-AA39 Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories AGENCY:

    Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    This final rule will be effective on March 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations and Rules (Practices and Procedures in Canada) in their respective jurisdictions. Under agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is amending the joint regulations by updating the Regulations and Rules in various categories. The changes will update the following sections of the Regulations and Rules: Condition of Vessels; Seaway Navigation; and, Information and Reports. These updates are necessary to take account of updated procedures which will enhance the safety of transits through the Seaway. Many of these changes are to clarify existing requirements in the regulations. Where new requirements or regulations are made, an explanation for such a change is provided below. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2016 (81 FR 6198). No comments were received. The joint regulations will become effective in Canada on March 21, 2016. For consistency, because these are joint regulations under international agreement, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, the SLSDC finds that there is good cause to make the U.S. version of the amendments effective on the same date.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Regulatory Evaluation

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination

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

    Environmental Impact

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

    Federalism

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

    Unfunded Mandates

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 401

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

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

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

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

    2. In § 401.10: a. Revise paragraph (b); and b. In the table in paragraph (d), revise the fifth entry.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 401.10 Mooring lines.

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

    (d) * * *

    Table Overall length of ships Length of mooring line Breaking
  • strength
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * More than 180 m but not more than 225.5 m 110 m 35 MT. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. In § 401.12, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 401.12 Minimum requirements—mooring lines and fairleads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. In § 401.13, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 401.13 Hand lines.

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

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

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

    6. In § 401.29, revise paragraph (c) and remove paragraphs (d) through (h) to read as follows:
    § 401.29 Maximum draft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    8. Revise § 401.44 to read as follows:
    § 401.44 Mooring in locks.

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

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

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

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

    9. Revise § 401.45 to read as follows:
    § 401.45 Emergency procedure.

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

    10. Revise § 401.47 to read as follows:
    § 401.47 Leaving a lock.

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

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

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

    (68 Stat. 93-96, 33 U.S.C. 981-990, as amended and secs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of sec. 2 of Pub. L. 95-474, 92 Stat. 1471)
    11. In § 401.79, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 401.79 Advance notice of arrival, vessels requiring inspection.

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

    12. In § 401.80, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 401.80 Reporting dangerous cargo.

    (c) Vessels carrying “Certain Dangerous Cargo” (CDC) as defined in the United States Coast Guard regulations 33 CFR 160.202, which is the same as the definition in the Transport Canada “Marine Transportation Security Regulations” (MTSR's), shall report the “Certain Dangerous Cargo” to the nearest Seaway station prior to a Seaway transit.

    13. In appendix I to subpart A, revise the Caution statement to read as follows: Appendix I to Subpart A of Part 401—Vessel Dimensions

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

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 10, 2016. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. Carrie Lavigne, Chief Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05798 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-61-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852 RIN 2700-AE01 and 2700-AE09 NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Correction AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Correcting amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on Thursday, March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12935), as part of the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) regulatory review. That final rule contained errors that need to be corrected.

    DATES:

    Effective: March 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, via email at [email protected], or telephone (202) 358-2143.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    NASA published a final rule in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015, which became effective April 13, 2015. This rule is part of the NASA FAR Supplement regulatory review. As published, the rule contained errors that require the following changes:

    • Revise section 1845.107-70(a)(1) to correct the title of the prescribed clause to “Contractor Requests for Government-furnished Property.”

    • Revise section 1852.227-70 clause title to “NEW TECHNOLOGY—OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.”

    • Revise section 1852.245-70 clause title to “Contractor Requests for Government-furnished Property.”

    • Update the authority citation of several NFS parts.

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852 are amended as follows:

    PARTS 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for parts 1802, 1804, 1805, 1806, 1807, 1808, 1811, 1813, 1814, 1815, 1822, 1824, 1825, 1828, 1830, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1839, 1841, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1849, 1850, 1851, and 1852 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 1845—GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
    1845.107-70 [Amended]
    2. Amend section 1845.107-70(a)(1) by removing “Government-Provided Property” and adding “Government-furnished Property” in its place.
    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    1852.227-70 [Amended]
    3. Amend section 1852.227-70 by removing “NEW TECHNOLOGY” and adding “NEW TECHNOLOGY—OTHER THAN A SMALL BUSINESS FIRM OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION” in its place.
    4. Revise section 1852.245-70 heading and title of the clause to read as follows:
    1852.245-70 Contractor requests for Government-furnished equipment. CONTRACTOR REQUESTS FOR GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY (AUG 2015)
    [FR Doc. 2016-05803 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Parts 2404, 2406, 2408, 2409, 2411, 2415, 2427, 2428, 2432, 2437, 2444, and 2452 [Docket No. FR-5814-F-02] RIN 2501-AD73 Amendments to the HUD Acquisition Regulation (HUDAR) AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the HUDAR to implement miscellaneous changes necessary to update the HUDAR. These changes include a correction to the designation of Source Selection Authorities, limited delegation of Head of Contracting Activity authorities, incorporation of the HUDAR Matrix, addition of new clauses including clauses relating to labor categories and prices per hour, and post-award conferences. HUD is transitioning to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services' Invoice Platform Processing System (IPP), and this final rule revises clauses related to payments and invoicing to take into account both the situations where invoicing and payment will not be made through the IPP and where invoices are required to be submitted electronically through the IPP. This final rule also clarifies that where funding has been made available for a contract, and the limit of the funding has been reached or the necessary funding modification is not in place, the contractor must stop performing work and may not start again until notified through a contract funding modification that funds are available to continue work. This final rule also modifies the proposed provision on post-award conferences to limit the clause to cases where a conference is required, and provides an alternate clause for attendance at such conferences via telephone or video conference. The rule makes certain administrative corrections, and incorporation of alternates to various clauses to allow for electronic invoicing.

    DATES:

    Effective: April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa D. Maguire, Assistant Chief Procurement Officer for Policy, Systems and Risk Management, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-0294 (this is not a toll-free number) and fax number 202-708-8912. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access Ms. Maguire's telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background A. The May 28, 2015, Proposed Rule

    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which governs the procurement of property and nonpersonal services by the government, is authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq. Pursuant to regulations of the General Services Administration under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 121(c) of the same Act, the FAR provides at 48 CFR 1.301 for agencies to issue their own acquisition regulations to implement or supplement the FAR. HUD's acquisition regulation (HUDAR) is found at 48 CFR chapter 24.

    On May 28, 2015, HUD proposed revising certain sections prescribing contract clauses, and certain of the clauses and alternates, in the HUDAR (80 FR 30416). Many of these corrections were administrative or technical in nature, such as correcting references to contract clauses, designating certain forms to be used for specific purposes, and delegating certain functions to specific positions within the agency.

    For example, the rule proposed designating the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer as the responsible official with the authority to approve, in writing, justifications for other than full and open procurements for proposed contracts over $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million (2406.304(a)(3)); and justifications for Limited Source considerations for proposed Federal Supply Schedule order or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) in the same estimated contract price range (2408.405-6(d)(3)). The rule also proposed designating HUD Assistant Secretaries, or their equivalent, as the Source Selection Authorities for selections made using the tradeoff process (2415.303(a)(1)) and to allow Assistant Secretaries to delegate this function to other departmental officials. There is an exception for procurements of legal services, in which case the General Counsel is designated as the source selection authority (2415.303(a)(2)).

    The rule proposed adding requirements concerning information to be collected by the Contracting Officer to determine a contractor's financial responsibility. The rule proposed adding a clause on consent to subcontract, applicable to contracts and task orders exceeding $10,000,000 in value (2452.244-70).

    The rule proposed several administrative corrections, including: revising section 2404.7001 to refer to the correct contract clause 2452.204-70, “Preservation of, and Access to, Contract Records (Tangible and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Formats),” and removing the title and redesignating the clause that is codified at section 2432.705-70 as 2432.705-70(a).

    In part 2406, the rule proposed adding section 2406.303 which requires the use of HUD Form 24012 1 for justifications for other than full and open competition.

    1 See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=24012.pdf.

    The rule also proposed to:

    Clarify section 2415.305(a)(5) to apply to Best Value Tradeoff technical evaluations;

    Codify a class deviation approved by HUD's Chief Procurement Officer dated April 10, 2013 to add Alternate 1 to clauses 2452.232-70 and 2452.232-71. These alternate clauses would provide for electronic invoicing by email;

    Add clause 2452.232-74, entitled “Not to Exceed Limitation,” and, in part 2432, add a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2432.705;

    Revise clause 2452.237-77(c)(1)(A) to change “21 days per month” to “number of business days in the month”, and to make a technical fix;

    Add clause 2452.237-79, “Post-Award Conference,” and a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2437.110(e)(5). The clause as proposed would have been required in all contracts for services;

    Add clause 2452.237-81, “Labor Categories, Unit Prices Per Hour and Payment,” and a reference to that clause and requirements regarding its use at section 2437.110(e)(6). This clause would specify the types of labor to be supplied by the contractor and the price per hour.

    Finally, the proposed rule incorporated a new HUDAR matrix under subpart 2452.3. The matrix provides a quick reference for information about each clause or provision, including whether it is required, required when applicable, or optional for the various types of contracts.

    B. This Final Rule

    This final rule follows publication of the May 28, 2015 proposed rule. HUD received no public comments on the proposed rule. However, HUD is making two related changes to the post-award conference provision and contract clause.

    This final rule clarifies a point that was unclear as to incremental funding. In section 2432.703-1, as it currently is codified, the HUDAR regulation states that a fixed-price contract may be funded incrementally if the conditions in paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii)(A), (B), and (C) are met, or if the condition in (b)(1)(iii) is met (that the contract uses funds available from 2 or more fiscal years and Congress has otherwise authorized incremental funding). This is actually not quite correct. While it is correct that the conditions in (b)(1)(i) and (ii) and their subordinate paragraphs apply, if the condition in (b)(1)(iii) is applicable, it applies as well; in other words, where (b)(1)(iii) is applicable, it and all the other conditions apply; it is not an alternative to the other clauses. This final rule makes this applicability of (b)(1)(iii) more clear.

    In the provision at 2437.110(e)(5), where the proposed rule required the post-award conference clause to be used in all contracts for services, the final rule modifies this provision so that the clause will be used only when the contractor will be required to attend a post-award conference. In other cases, the clause is unnecessary, and this change will reduce burden in those cases. The clause itself, at 2452.237-79, is revised to add an alternate clause for use when the post-award conference will be conducted via telephone or video conferencing. This is consistent with other revisions to provide for the use of electronic communications in this rule (such as the alternate clauses for electronic invoicing) and recognizes the increasing use of such communications. The matrix is also revised to reflect these changes.

    Because HUD is now transitioning to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Financial Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system, clauses 2452.232-70 and 2452.232-71 are revised to add material relevant to the IPP in this final rule. In clause 2452.232-70, which covers invoice submission for fixed price contracts, the first clause listed is for the case where invoicing and payments will not be made through the IPP system, and this clause is similar to the proposed main clause through paragraph (d). Alternate I, as proposed, is for electronic submission of invoices via email in fixed price contracts other than performance-based contracts under which performance based payments will be used. Alternate I in this final rule covers the same subject, and is similar to the proposed rule, where the invoices will be submitted electronically by email but not submitted through the IPP system. New in this final rule is Alternate II, which covers the situation where, in all fixed price solicitations and contracts, invoices are required to be submitted electronically through the IPP system.

    A similar change to account for the transition to the IPP system is also made in this final rule to clause 2452.232-71, which covers voucher submission for cost reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour contracts. As with the previous clause, the main clause and Alternate I deal, respectively with paper submission and electronic submission in cases where the IPP is not being used, and are essentially similar to the same clauses as proposed with the exception that the proviso that it applies where vouchering and payments will not be made through the IPP. This final rule adds Alternate II to cover all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour type solicitations and contracts when requiring vouchers to be submitted electronically to the IPP system. These transitional provisions simply update procedures to allow contracting to continue as HUD transitions to the IPP.

    The proposed clause 2452.232-74, entitled “Not to Exceed Limitation,” is revised to clarify a particular point. The proposed rule provided that a contract states a specific amount of funding available for the performance of work, and that the government shall not order, nor the contractor be required, to perform work that exceeds the funding limit, and that the government may unilaterally increase the amount of funding obligated through contract modifications until the full contract value has been obligated. The proposed rule did not state what is required in the case where all the contract funding is not yet obligated but a particular funding limit has been reached and a contract modification is needed to provide additional funding. This final rule clarifies that if a necessary modification is not yet in place, or the work has reached the stated funding limit, the contractor must stop performance and may not start again until notified through a contract funding modification that funds are available.

    The rule is being made final with no other changes from the proposed rule.

    II. Findings and Certifications Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

    The information collection requirements contained in this final rule are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2535-0091. The information collection requirements for the HUDAR are currently approved by OMB under control number 2535-0091. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531- 1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector within the meaning of UMRA.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule makes technical changes to existing contracting procedures and does not make any major changes that would significantly impact businesses. Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Environmental Impact

    This final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

    List of Subjects 48 CFR Part 2404

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2406

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2408

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2409

    Government Procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2411

    Government Procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2415

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2432

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2437

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2444

    Government procurement.

    48 CFR Part 2452

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and pursuant to the authority under 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), HUD amends 48 CFR chapter 24 as follows:

    PART 2404—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. The authority citation for part 2404 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2404.7—Contractor Records Retention 2. Revise section 2404.7001 to read as follows:
    2404.7001 Contract clause.

    The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.204-70, “Preservation of, and Access to, Contract Records (Tangible and Electronically Stored Information (ESI) Formats),” in all solicitations and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. The Contracting Officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate I in cost-reimbursement type contracts. The Contracting Officer shall use the basic clause with its Alternate II in labor-hour and time-and-materials contracts.

    PART 2406—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 3. The authority citation for part 2406 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2406.3—Other Than Full and Open Competition 4. Add section 2406.303 to read as follows:
    2406.303 Justifications.

    Justifications for Other Than Full and Open Competition must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD Form 24012.

    5. In section 2406.304. add paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    2406.304 Approval of the justification.

    (a)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for other than full and open competition procurements for proposed contracts over $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million.

    PART 2408—REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 6. The authority citation for part 2408 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    7. Add subpart 2408.4 to read as follows: Subpart 2408.4—Federal Supply Schedules Sec. 2408.404 Pricing. 2408.405-6 Limiting sources. 2408.404 Pricing.

    (d) Supplies offered on the schedule are listed at fixed prices. Services offered on the schedule are priced either at hourly rates, or at fixed price for performance of a specific task (e.g., installation, maintenance, and repair). GSA has determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, to be fair and reasonable for the purpose of establishing the schedule contract. GSA's determination does not relieve the ordering activity Contracting Officer from the responsibility of making a determination of fair and reasonable pricing for individual orders, BPAs, and orders under BPAs. Contracting Officers shall follow the general principles and techniques outlined in FAR Section 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques, to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable, keeping in mind that the complexity and circumstances of each acquisition should determine the level of detail of the analysis required.

    2408.405-6 Limiting sources.

    (c)(2) Justifications for limiting sources, under the Federal Supply Schedules when exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, must be prepared and approved using the latest version of HUD Form 24013.

    (d)(3) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Head of Contracting Activity, has delegated the authority to the Deputy Chief Procurement Officer to approve, in writing, justifications for limited source considerations for a proposed Federal Supply Schedule order or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with an estimated value exceeding $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million.

    PART 2409—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 8. The authority citation for part 2409 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    9. Add subpart 2409.1, consisting of section 2409.105, to read as follows: Subpart 2409.1—Responsible Prospective Contractors
    2409.105 Procedures.

    (a) The Contracting Officer shall perform a financial review when the Contracting Officer does not otherwise have sufficient information to make a positive determination of financial responsibility. In addition, the Contracting Officer shall consider performing a financial review—

    (1) Prior to award of a contract, when—

    (i) The contractor is on a list requiring pre-award clearance or other special clearance before award;

    (ii) The contractor is listed on the Consolidated List of Contractors Indebted to the Government, or is otherwise known to be indebted to the Government;

    (iii) The contractor may receive Government assets such as contract financing payments or Government property;

    (iv) The contractor is experiencing performance difficulties on other work; or

    (v) The contractor is a new company or a new supplier of the item.

    (2) At periodic intervals after award of a contract, when—

    (i) Any of the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (v) of this section are applicable; or

    (ii) There is any other reason to question the contractor's ability to finance performance and completion of the contract.

    (b) The Contracting Officer shall obtain the type and depth of financial and other information that is required to establish a contractor's financial capability or disclose a contractor's financial condition. While the Contracting Officer should not request information that is not necessary for protection of the Government's interests, the Contracting Officer must insist upon obtaining the information that is necessary. The unwillingness or inability of a contractor to present reasonably requested information in a timely manner, especially information that a prudent business person would be expected to have and to use in the professional management of a business, may be a material fact in the determination of the contractor's responsibility and prospects for contract completion.

    (c) The Contracting Officer shall obtain the following information to the extent required to protect the Government's interest. In addition, if the Contracting Officer concludes that information not listed herein is required to determine financial responsibility, that information should be requested. The information must be for the person(s) who are legally liable for contract performance. If the contractor is not a corporation, the Contracting Officer shall obtain the required information for each individual/joint venturer/partner:

    (1) Balance sheet and income statement—

    (i) For the current fiscal year (interim);

    (ii) For the most recent fiscal year and, preferably, for the 2 preceding fiscal years. These should be certified by an independent public accountant or by an appropriate officer of the firm; and

    (iii) Forecasted for each fiscal year for the remainder of the period of contract performance.

    (2) Summary history of the contractor and its principal managers, disclosing any previous insolvencies—corporate or personal, and describing its products or services.

    (3) Statement of all affiliations disclosing—

    (i) Material financial interests of the contractor;

    (ii) Material financial interests in the contractor;

    (iii) Material affiliations of owners, officers, members, directors, major stockholders; and

    (iv) The major stockholders if the contractor is not a widely-traded, publicly-held corporation.

    (4) Statement of all forms of compensation to each officer, manager, partner, joint venturer, or proprietor, as appropriate—

    (i) Planned for the current year;

    (ii) Paid during the past 2 years; and

    (iii) Deferred to future periods.

    (5) Business base and forecast that—

    (i) Shows, by significant markets, existing contracts and outstanding offers, including those under negotiation; and

    (ii) Is reconcilable to indirect cost rate projections.

    (6) Cash forecast for the duration of the contract.

    (7) Financing arrangement information that discloses—

    (i) Availability of cash to finance contract performance;

    (ii) Contractor's exposure to financial crisis from creditor's demands;

    (iii) Degree to which credit security provisions could conflict with Government title terms under contract financing;

    (iv) Clearly stated confirmations of credit with no unacceptable qualifications; and

    (v) Unambiguous written agreement by a creditor if credit arrangements include deferred trade payments or creditor subordinations/repayment suspensions.

    (8) Statement of all state, local, and Federal tax accounts, including special mandatory contributions, e.g., environmental superfund.

    (9) Description and explanation of the financial effect of issues such as—

    (i) Leases, deferred purchase arrangements, or patent or royalty arrangements;

    (ii) Insurance, when relevant to the contract;

    (iii) Contemplated capital expenditures, changes in equity, or contractor debt load;

    (iv) Pending claims either by or against the contractor;

    (v) Contingent liabilities such as guarantees, litigation, environmental, or product liabilities;

    (vi) Validity of accounts receivable and actual value of inventory, as assets; and

    (vii) Status and aging of accounts payable.

    (10) Significant ratios such as—

    (i) Inventory to annual sales;

    (ii) Inventory to current assets;

    (iii) Liquid assets to current assets;

    (iv) Liquid assets to current liabilities;

    (v) Current assets to current liabilities; and

    (vi) Net worth to net debt.

    PART 2411—[REMOVED AND RESERVED] 10. Under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 121(c), part 2411 is removed and reserved. PART 2415—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION 11. The authority citation for part 2415 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 41 U.S.C. 3301-3306 and 3105; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2415.2—Solicitation and Receipt of Proposals and Quotations 12. In section 2415.209, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    2415.209 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (a)(1) The Contracting Officer shall insert a provision substantially the same as the provision at 2452.215-70, Proposal Content, in all solicitations for negotiated procurements expected to exceed the simplified acquisition limit. The provision may be used in simplified acquisitions when it is necessary to obtain business proposal information in making the award selection. If the proposed contract requires work on, or access to, HUD systems or applications (see the clause at 2452.239-70), the provision shall be used with its Alternate I. When the Contracting Officer has determined that it is necessary to limit the size of the technical and management portion of offers submitted by offerors, the provision shall be used with its Alternate II.

    Subpart 2415.3—Source Selection 13. In section 2415.303, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    2415.303 Responsibilities.

    (a)(1) Except as identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates Assistant Secretaries, or their equivalent, for requiring activities as the Source Selection Authorities for selections made using the tradeoff process. Assistant Secretaries may delegate this function to other departmental officials. This designation also applies to acquisitions not performed under the requirements of FAR part 15, but utilizing tradeoff analysis.

    (2) HUD's Chief Procurement Officer, as the Senior Procurement Executive, designates HUD's Office of General Counsel (OGC) as the Source Selection Authority, regardless of contract amount, in all Headquarters procurements for legal services, unless (s)he specifically designates another agency official to perform that function. Any Headquarters office desiring to procure outside legal services for the Department shall obtain OGC approval before advertising or soliciting proposals for such services. OGC shall determine whether the services are necessary and the extent of OGC involvement in the procurement.

    14. In section 2415.305, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
    2415.305 Proposal evaluation.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Technical evaluation when tradeoffs are performed. The TEP shall rate each proposal based on the evaluation factors specified in the solicitation. The TEP shall identify each proposal as being acceptable, unacceptable but capable of being made acceptable, or unacceptable. A proposal shall be considered unacceptable if it is so clearly deficient that it cannot be corrected through written or oral discussions. Under the tradeoff process, predetermined threshold levels of technical acceptability for proposals shall not be employed. A technical evaluation report, which complies with FAR 15.305(a)(3), shall be prepared and signed by the technical evaluators, furnished to the Contracting Officer, and maintained as a permanent record in the official procurement file.

    PART 2432—CONTRACT FINANCING 15. The authority citation for part 2432 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3901-3905; 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2432.7—Contract Funding 16. In section 2432.703, revise paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    2432.703-1 General.

    (b)(1) Except as described herein, a fixed-price contract may be funded incrementally only if—

    (i) Sufficient funds are not available to the Department at the time of contract award or exercise of option to fully fund the contract or option; and

    (ii) The contract (excluding any options) or any exercised option—

    (A) Is for severable services; and

    (B) Does not exceed one year in length; and

    (C) Is incrementally funded using funds available (unexpired) as of the date the funds are obligated; and

    (iii) If applicable, the contract uses funds available from multiple (2 or more) fiscal years and Congress has otherwise authorized incremental funding.

    17. Revise section 2432.705 to read as follows:
    2432.705 Contract clauses.

    (a) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.232-72, “Limitation of Government's Obligation,” in solicitations and resultant incrementally funded fixed-price contracts as authorized by 2432.703-1. The Contracting Officer shall insert the information required in the table in paragraph (b) and the notification period in paragraph (c) of the clause.

    (b) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.232-74, “Not To Exceed Limitation” in all solicitations and contracts where the total estimated funds needed for the performance period are not yet obligated.

    2432.705-70 [Removed]
    18. Remove section 2432.705-70.
    PART 2437—SERVICE CONTRACTING 19. The authority citation for part 2437 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2437.1—Service Contracts—General 20. In section 2437.110, revise paragraph (e)(2) and add paragraphs (e)(5) and (6) to read as follows:

    2437.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

    (e) * * *

    (2) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-73, “Conduct of Work and Technical Guidance,” in all solicitations and contracts for services.

    (5) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-79, “Post Award Conference,” in all solicitations and contracts for services when the contractor will be required to attend a post-award orientation conference. The Contracting Officer shall indicate whether the contractor must attend the conference in person or via electronic communication. The Contracting Officer shall use Alternate I when the Post Award Conference will be conducted by telephone or video conferencing.

    (6) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-81, “Labor Categories, Unit Prices Per Hour and Payment,” in all indefinite quantity and requirements solicitations and contracts when level of effort task orders will be issued.

    21. Add part 2444, consisting of subpart 2444.2, to read as follows:
    PART 2444—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2444.2—Contract Clauses
    2444.204 Contract clauses.

    (a) Insert HUDAR clause 2452.244-70 Consent to Subcontract, in contracts and task orders with an estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.

    PART 2452—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 22. The authority citation for part 2452 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 U.S.C. 121(c); 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Subpart 2452.2—Texts of Provisions and Clauses
    § 2452.211-70 [Removed]
    23. Remove section 2452.211-70. 24. Revise section 2452.215-70 to read as follows:
    2452.215-70 Proposal content.

    As prescribed in 2415.209(a), insert a provision substantially the same as the following:

    PROPOSAL CONTENT (MAR 2016)

    (a) Proposals shall be submitted in two parts as described in paragraphs (c) and (d) below. Each of the parts must be complete in itself so that evaluation of each part may be conducted independently, and so the identified parts of each proposal may be evaluated strictly on its own merit. Proposals shall be submitted in the format, if any, prescribed elsewhere in this solicitation. Proposals shall be enclosed in sealed packaging and addressed to the office specified in the solicitation. The offeror's name and address, the solicitation number and the date and time specified in the solicitation for proposal submission must appear in writing on the outside of the package.

    (b) The number of proposals required is an original and [insert number] copies of Part I, and [insert number] copies of Part II.

    (c) Part I—Technical Proposal. (1) The offeror shall submit the information required in Instructions to Offerors designated under Part I—Technical Proposal.

    (d) Part II—Business Proposal. (1) The offeror shall complete the Representations and Certifications provided in Section K of this solicitation and include them in Part II, Business Proposal.

    (2) The offeror shall provide information to support the offeror's proposed costs or prices as prescribed elsewhere in Instructions to Offerors for Part II—Business Proposal.

    (3) The offeror shall submit any other information required in Instructions to Offerors designated under Part II—Business Proposal.

    (End of provision)

    Alternate I (MAR 2016)

    As prescribed in 2415.209(a), if the proposed contract requires work on, or access to, sensitive automated systems as described in 2452.239-70, add the following subparagraph, numbered sequentially, to paragraph (d):

    The offeror shall describe in detail how the offeror will maintain the security of automated systems as required by clause 2452.239-70 in Section I of this solicitation and include it in Part II, Business Proposal.

    (End of Provision)

    Alternate II (MAR 2016)

    As prescribed in 2415.209(a), add the following paragraph (e) when the size of any proposal Part I or Part II will be limited:

    (e) Size limits of Parts I and II. (1) Offerors shall limit submissions of Parts I and II of their initial proposals to the page limitations identified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors are cautioned that, if any Part of their proposal exceeds the stipulated limits for that Part, the Government will evaluate only the information contained in the pages up through the permitted number. Pages beyond that limit will not be evaluated.

    (2) A page shall consist of one side of a single sheet of 81/2′ x 11″ paper, single spaced, using not smaller than 12 point type font, and having margins at the top, bottom, and sides of the page of no less than one inch in width.

    (3) Any exemptions from this limitation are stipulated under the Instructions to Offerors.

    (4) Offerors are encouraged to use recycled paper and to use both sides of the paper (see the FAR clause at 52.204-4).

    (End of Provision)
    25. Revise section 2452.232-70 to read as follows:
    2452.232-70 Payment schedule and invoice submission (Fixed-Price).

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(2), insert the following clause in all fixed price solicitations and contracts where invoicing and payments will NOT be made through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND INVOICE SUBMISSION (FIXED-PRICE) (MAR 2016)

    (a) Payment schedule. Payment of the contract price (see Section B of the contract) will be made upon completion and acceptance of all work unless a partial payment schedule is included below.

    [Contracting Officer insert schedule information]:

    Partial payment number Applicable contract
  • deliverable
  • Delivery date Payment
  • amount
  • 1. [ ] 2. [ ] 3. [ ]

    [Continue as necessary]

    (b) Submission of invoices. (1) The Contractor shall submit invoices as follows: original to the payment office and one copy each to the Contracting Officer and a copy to the Government Technical Representative (GTR) identified in the contract. To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice must include all items required by the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.”

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 21 of the SF-33, or block 25 of the SF-1449). The contractor is also requested to clearly indicate on the mailing envelope that an invoice is enclosed.

    (c) Contractor remittance information. The contractor shall provide the payment office with all information required by other payment clauses or other supplemental information (e.g., contracts for commercial services) contained in this contract.

    (d) Final invoice payment. The final invoice will not be paid prior to certification by the Contracting Officer that all work has been completed and accepted.

    (End of clause)

    Alternate I (MAR 2016).

    As prescribed in HUDAR section 2432.908(c)(2), replace paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) with the following Alternate I paragraphs to HUDAR Clause 2452.232-70 Payment Schedule and Invoice Submission (Fixed-price) for fixed price solicitations and contracts other than performance-based under which performance-based payments will be used and where invoices are to be submitted electronically by email but will not be paid through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    (b) Submission of invoices. (1) The contractor shall submit invoices electronically via email to the email addresses shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 12 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 25 of the SF-33, or block 18a of the SF-1449) and carbon copy the Contracting Officer and the Government Technical Representative (GTR). To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice must include all items required by the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.” The contractor shall clearly include in the Subject line of the email: INVOICE INCLUDED; CONTRACT/ORDER #: ___, INVOICE NUMBER ___ and Contract Line Item Number(s) ___.

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 21 of the SF-33, or block 25 of the SF-1449).

    (End of Alternate I)

    Alternate II (MAR 2016).

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(2), replace paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-70 Payment Schedule and Invoice Submission (Fixed-price) with the following Alternate II language in all fixed price solicitations and contracts when requiring invoices to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    (b) Submission of invoices. (1) The Contractor shall obtain access and submit invoices to the Department of Treasury Bureau of Fiscal Services' Invoice Platform Processing System via the Web at URL: https://arc.publicdebt.treas.gov/ipp/fsippqrg.htm in accordance with the instructions on the Web site. To constitute a proper invoice, the invoice must include all items required by the FAR clause at 52.232-25, “Prompt Payment.”

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is also requested to include on each invoice the appropriation number shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 21 of the SF-33, or block 25 of the SF-1449).

    (End of Alternate II)
    26. Revise section 2452.232-71 to read as follows:
    2452.232-71 Voucher submission (cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour).

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2432.908(c)(3), insert the following clause in all cost reimbursable, time-and-materials, and labor-hour solicitations and contracts where vouchering and payments will NOT be made through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    VOUCHER SUBMISSION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT, TIME-AND-MATERIALS, AND LABOR HOUR) (MAR 2016)

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The contractor shall submit, ___ [Contracting Officer insert billing period, e.g., monthly], an original and two copies of each voucher. In addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date. The Contractor shall submit all vouchers, except for the final voucher, as follows: original to the payment office and one copy each to the Contracting Officer and the Government Technical Representative (GTR) identified in the contract. The contractor shall submit all copies of the final voucher to the Contracting Officer.

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33). The contractor is also requested to clearly indicate on the mailing envelope that a payment voucher is enclosed.

    (b) Contractor remittance information. (1) The Contractor shall provide the payment office with all information required by other payment clauses contained in this contract.

    (2) For time-and-materials and labor-hour contracts, the Contractor shall aggregate vouchered costs by the individual task for which the costs were incurred and clearly identify the task or job.

    (c) Final Payment. The final payment shall not be made until the Contracting Officer has certified that the contractor has complied with all terms of the contract.

    (End of clause)

    Alternate I (MAR 2016).

    As prescribed in HUDAR section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) with the following Alternate I paragraphs to HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71, Voucher Submission in time and material, cost-reimbursable and labor hour solicitations and contracts other than performance-based under which performance-based payments will be used and where invoices are to be submitted electronically by email but will not be paid through the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The contractor shall submit vouchers electronically via email to the email addresses shown on the contract award document (e.g., block 12 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, block 25 of the SF-33, or block 18a of the SF-1449) and carbon copy the Contracting Officer and the Government Technical Representative (GTR). In addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232- 25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date. The contractor shall clearly include in the Subject line of the email: VOUCHER INCLUDED; CONTRACT/ORDER #: ___, VOUCHER NUMBER ___ and Contract Line Item Number(s) ___.

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33).

    (End of Alternate I)

    Alternate II (MAR 2016).

    As prescribed in HUDAR section 2432.908(c)(3), replace paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of the HUDAR Clause 2452.232-71 Voucher Submission with the following Alternate II language in all cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, and labor-hour type solicitations and contracts when requiring vouchers to be submitted electronically to the Department of Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Services Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) system:

    (a) Voucher submission. (1) The Contractor shall obtain access and submit invoices to the Department of Treasury Bureau of Fiscal Services' Invoice Platform Processing System via the Web at URL: https://arc.publicdebt.treas.gov/ipp/fsippqrg.htm in accordance with the instructions on the Web site. To constitute a proper voucher, in addition to the items required by the clause at FAR 52.232-25, Prompt Payment, the voucher shall show the elements of cost for the billing period and the cumulative costs to date.

    (2) To assist the government in making timely payments, the contractor is requested to include on each voucher the applicable appropriation number(s) shown on the award or subsequent modification document (e.g., block 14 of the Standard Form (SF) 26, or block 21 of the SF-33).

    (End of Alternate II)

    27. Add section 2452.232-74 to read as follows:
    2452.232-74 Not to exceed limitation.

    As prescribed in 2432.705(b), insert the following clause in all solicitations and contracts where the total estimated funds needed for the performance of the contract are not yet obligated.

    NOT TO EXCEED LIMITATION (MAR 2016)

    (a) The total estimated funds needed for the performance of this contract are not yet obligated. The total obligation of funds available at this time for performance of work or deliveries is [insert amount]. The Government shall not order, nor shall the contractor be authorized or required to accept orders for, or perform work on such orders (or perform any other work on this contract) or make deliveries that exceed the stated funding limit.

    (b) When funding is available, the Government may unilaterally increase the amount obligated through contract funding modification(s) until the full contract value has been obligated. If a contract funding modification is not in place by the time the performance of the work or deliveries have reached the stated funding limit, the contractor must stop performing services and deliveries and may not start again until the contractor is notified through a contract funding modification that funds are available to continue services and deliveries.

    (End of clause)
    28. Revise section 2452.237-73 to read as follows:
    2452.237-73 Conduct of work and technical guidance.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(2), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:

    CONDUCT OF WORK AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE (MAR 2016)

    (a) The Contracting Officer will provide the contractor with the name and contact information of the Government Technical Representative (GTR) assigned to this contract. The GTR will serve as the contractor's liaison with the Contracting Officer with regard to the conduct of work. The Contracting Officer will notify the contractor in writing of any change to the current GTR's status or the designation of a successor GTR.

    (b) The GTR for liaison with the contractor as to the conduct of work is [to be inserted at time of award] or a successor designated by the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer will notify the contractor in writing of any change to the current GTR's status or the designation of a successor GTR.

    (c) The GTR will provide guidance to the contractor on the technical performance of the contract. Such guidance shall not be of a nature which:

    (1) Causes the contractor to perform work outside the statement of work or specifications of the contract;

    (2) Constitutes a change as defined in FAR 52.243 1;

    (3) Causes an increase or decrease in the cost of the contract;

    (4) Alters the period of performance or delivery dates; or

    (5) Changes any of the other express terms or conditions of the contract.

    (d) The GTR will issue technical guidance in writing or, if issued orally, he/she will confirm such direction in writing within five calendar days after oral issuance. The GTR may issue such guidance via telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail.

    (e) Other specific limitations [to be inserted by Contracting Officer]:

    (f) The contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer whenever the contractor believes that guidance provided by any government personnel, whether or not specifically provided pursuant to this clause, is of a nature described in paragraph (b) above.

    (End of clause)
    29. In section 2452.237-77, revise the introductory text, add paragraph (a)(1), and revise paragraph (c)(1)(A) to read as follows:
    2452.237-77 Temporary closure of HUD facilities.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(4), insert the following clause:

    Temporary Closure of HUD Facilities (MAR 2016)

    (a)(1) The Department of Housing and Urban Development observes the following days as holidays—

    New Year's Day Martin Luther King's Birthday Washington's Birthday Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Columbus Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Day Christmas Day

    Any other day designated by Federal law, Executive Order or Presidential Proclamation.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (A) The deduction rate in dollars per day will be equal to the per month contract price divided by the number of business days in each month.

    30. Add section 2452.237-79 to read as follows:
    2452.237-79 Post award conference.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(5), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:

    POST AWARD CONFERENCE (MAR 2016)

    The Contractor shall be required to attend a post-award conference on DATE___ to be held at ADDRESS___, unless other arrangements are made. All Contractors must have a valid ID for security clearance into the building.

    (End of clause)

    POST AWARD CONFERENCE (MAR 2016)

    Alternate I

    If the conference will be conducted via telephone or video conferencing, substitute the following for the first and second sentences:

    The conference will be conducted via [telephone, video conferencing]. The Contracting Officer or designee will provide the contractor with the date, time and contact information for the conference.

    (End of Alternate I)
    31. Add section 2452.237-81 to read as follows:
    2452.237-81 Labor categories, unit prices per hour and payment.

    As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(6), insert the following clause in all indefinite quantity and requirements solicitations and contracts when level of effort task orders will be issued.

    LABOR CATEGORIES, UNIT PRICES PER HOUR AND PAYMENT (MAR 2016)

    The contractor shall provide the following types of labor at the corresponding unit price per hour in accordance with the terms of this contract:

    The unit price per hour is inclusive of the hourly wage plus any applicable labor overhead, General and Administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit. Payment shall be made to the contractor upon delivery to, and acceptance by, the Government office requesting services. The total amounts billed shall be derived by multiplying the actual number of hours worked per category by the corresponding price per hour.

    (End of clause)
    32. Revise section 2452.239-70 to read as follows:
    2452.239-70 Access to HUD systems.

    As prescribed in 2439.107(a), insert the following clause:

    ACCESS TO HUD SYSTEMS (MAR 2016)

    (a) Definitions: As used in this clause—

    “Access” means the ability to obtain, view, read, modify, delete, and/or otherwise make use of information resources.

    “Application” means the use of information resources (information and information technology) to satisfy a specific set of user requirements (see OMB Circular A-130).

    “Contractor employee” means an employee of the prime contractor or of any subcontractor, affiliate, partner, joint venture, or team members with which the contractor is associated. It also includes consultants engaged by any of those entities.

    “Mission-critical system” means an information technology or telecommunications system used or operated by HUD or by a HUD contractor, or organization on behalf of HUD, that processes any information, the loss, misuse, disclosure, or unauthorized access to, or modification of which would have a debilitating impact on the mission of the agency.

    “NACI” means a National Agency Check with Inquiries, the minimum background investigation prescribed by OPM.

    “PIV Card” means the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card, the Federal Government-issued identification credential (i.e., identification badge).

    “Sensitive information” means any information of which the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to, or modification of, could adversely affect the national interest, the conduct of federal programs, or the privacy to which individuals are entitled under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (the Privacy Act), but which has not been specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order or an Act of Congress to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.

    “System” means an interconnected set of information resources under the same direct management control, which shares common functionality. A system normally includes hardware, software, information, data, applications, communications, and people (see OMB Circular A-130). System includes any system owned by HUD or owned and operated on HUD's behalf by another party.

    (b) General. (1) The performance of this contract requires contractor employees to have access to a HUD system or systems. All such employees who do not already possess a current PIV Card acceptable to HUD shall be required to provide personal background information, undergo a background investigation (NACI or other OPM-required or approved investigation), including an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and obtain a PIV Card prior to being permitted access to any such system in performance of this contract. HUD may accept a PIV Card issued by another Federal Government agency but shall not be required to do so. No contractor employee will be permitted access to any HUD system without a PIV Card.

    (2) All contractor employees who require access to mission-critical systems or sensitive information contained within a HUD system or application(s) are required to have a more extensive background investigation. The investigation shall be commensurate with the risk and security controls involved in managing, using, or operating the system or applications(s).

    (c) Citizenship-related requirements. Each affected contractor employee as described in paragraph (b) of this clause shall be:

    (1) A United States (U.S.) citizen; or,

    (2) A national of the United States (see 8 U.S.C. 1408); or,

    (3) An alien lawfully admitted into, and lawfully permitted to be employed in the United States, provided that for any such individual, the Government is able to obtain sufficient background information to complete the investigation as required by this clause. Failure on the part of the contractor to provide sufficient information to perform a required investigation or the inability of the Government to verify information provided for affected contractor employees will result in denial of their access.

    (d) Background investigation process. (1) The Government Technical Representative (GTR) shall notify the contractor of those contractor employee positions requiring background investigations.

    (i) For each contractor employee requiring access to HUD information systems, the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: Standard Form (SF) 85, “Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” FD 258 (Fingerprint Chart), and a partial Optional Form (OF) 306 (Items 1, 2, 6, 8-13, 16, and 17).

    (ii) For each contractor employee requiring access to mission-critical systems and/or sensitive information contained within a HUD system and/or application(s), the contractor shall submit the following properly completed forms: SF-85P, “Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions;” FD 258; and a Fair Credit Reporting Act form (authorization for the credit-check portion of the investigation). Contractor employees shall not complete the Medical Release behind the SF-85P.

    (iii) The SF-85, 85P, and OF-306 are available from OPM's Web site, http://www.opm.gov. The GTR will provide all other forms that are not obtainable via the Internet.

    (2) The contractor shall deliver the forms and information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause to the GTR.

    (3) Affected contractor employees who have had a federal background investigation without a subsequent break in federal employment or federal contract service exceeding 2 years may be exempt from the investigation requirements of this clause subject to verification of the previous investigation. For each such employee, the contractor shall submit the following information in lieu of the forms and information listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause: employee's full name, Social Security number, and place and date of birth.

    (4) The investigation process shall consist of a range of personal background inquiries and contacts (written and personal) and verification of the information provided on the investigative forms described in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause.

    (5) Upon completion of the investigation process, the GTR will notify the contractor if any contractor employee is determined to be unsuitable to have access to the system(s), application(s), or information. Such an employee may not be given access to those resources. If any such employee has already been given access pending the results of the background investigation, the contractor shall ensure that the employee's access is revoked immediately upon receipt of the GTR's notification.

    (6) Failure of the GTR to notify the contractor (see subparagraph (d)(1)) of any employee who should be subject to the requirements of this clause and is known, or should reasonably be known, by the contractor to be subject to the requirements of this clause, shall not excuse the contractor from making such employee(s) known to the GTR. Any such employee who is identified and is working under the contract, without having had the appropriate background investigation or furnished the required forms for the investigation, shall cease to perform such work immediately and shall not be given access to the system(s)/application(s) described in paragraph (b) of this clause until the contractor has provided the investigative forms required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause for the employee to the GTR.

    (7) The contractor shall notify the GTR in writing whenever a contractor employee for whom a background investigation package was required and submitted to HUD, or for whom a background investigation was completed, terminates employment with the contractor or otherwise is no longer performing work under this contract that requires access to the system(s), application(s), or information. The contractor shall provide a copy of the written notice to the Contracting Officer.

    (e) PIV Cards. (1) HUD will issue a PIV Card to each contractor employee who is to be given access to HUD systems and does not already possess a PIV Card acceptable to HUD (see paragraph (b) of this clause). HUD will not issue the PIV Card until the contractor employee has successfully cleared an FBI National Criminal History Fingerprint Check, and HUD has initiated the background investigation for the contractor employee. Initiation is defined to mean that all background information required in paragraph (d)(1) of this clause has been delivered to HUD. The employee may not be given access prior to those two events. HUD may issue a PIV Card and grant access pending the completion of the background investigation. HUD will revoke the PIV Card and the employee's access if the background investigation process (including adjudication of investigation results) for the employee has not been completed within 6 months after the issuance of the PIV Card.

    (2) PIV Cards shall identify individuals as contractor employees. Contractor employees shall display their PIV Cards on their persons at all times while working in a HUD facility, and shall present cards for inspection upon request by HUD officials or HUD security personnel.

    (3) The contractor shall be responsible for all PIV Cards issued to the contractor's employees and shall immediately notify the GTR if any PIV Card(s) cannot be accounted for. The contractor shall promptly return PIV Cards to HUD as required by the FAR clause at 52.204-9. The contractor shall notify the GTR immediately whenever any contractor employee no longer has a need for his/her HUD-issued PIV Card (e.g., the employee terminates employment with the contractor, the employee's duties no longer require access to HUD systems). The GTR will instruct the contractor as to how to return the PIV Card. Upon expiration of this contract, the GTR will instruct the contractor as to how to return all HUD-issued PIV Cards not previously returned. Unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer, the contractor shall not return PIV Cards to any person other than the GTR.

    (f) Control of access. HUD shall have and exercise full and complete control over granting, denying, withholding, and terminating access of contractor employees to HUD systems. The GTR will notify the contractor immediately when HUD has determined that an employee is unsuitable or unfit to be permitted access to a HUD system. The contractor shall immediately notify such employee that he/she no longer has access to any HUD system, physically retrieve the employee's PIV Card from the employee, and provide a suitable replacement employee in accordance with the requirements of this clause.

    (g) Incident response notification. An incident is defined as an event, either accidental or deliberate, that results in unauthorized access, loss, disclosure, modification, or destruction of information technology systems, applications, or data. The contractor shall immediately notify the GTR and the Contracting Officer of any known or suspected incident, or any unauthorized disclosure of the information contained in the system(s) to which the contractor has access.

    (h) Nondisclosure of information. (1) Neither the contractor nor any of its employees shall divulge or release data or information developed or obtained during performance of this contract, except to authorized government personnel with an established need to know, or upon written approval of the Contracting Officer. Information contained in all source documents and other media provided by HUD is the sole property of HUD.

    (2) The contractor shall require that all employees who may have access to the system(s)/applications(s) identified in paragraph (b) of this clause sign a pledge of nondisclosure of information. The employees shall sign these pledges before they are permitted to perform work under this contract. The contractor shall maintain the signed pledges for a period of 3 years after final payment under this contract. The contractor shall provide a copy of these pledges to the GTR.

    (i) Security procedures. (1) The Contractor shall comply with applicable federal and HUD statutes, regulations, policies, and procedures governing the security of the system(s) to which the contractor's employees have access including, but not limited to:

    (i) The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002;

    (ii) OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;

    (iii) HUD Handbook 2400.25, Information Technology Security Policy;

    (iv) HUD Handbook 732.3, Personnel Security/Suitability;

    (v) Federal Information Processing Standards 201 (FIPS 201), Sections 2.1 and 2.2;

    (vi) Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12); and

    (vii) OMB Memorandum M-05-24, Implementing Guidance for HSPD-12. The HUD Handbooks are available online at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/ or from the GTR.

    (2) The contractor shall develop and maintain a compliance matrix that lists each requirement set forth in paragraphs, (b) through (h), (i)(1), and (m) of this clause with specific actions taken, and/or procedures implemented, to satisfy each requirement. The contractor shall identify an accountable person for each requirement, the date upon which actions/procedures were initiated/completed, and certify that information contained in this compliance matrix is correct. The contractor shall ensure that information in this compliance matrix is complete, accurate, and up-to-date at all times for the duration of this contract. Upon request, the contractor shall provide copies of the current matrix to the Contracting Officer and/or government technical representative.

    (3) The Contractor shall ensure that its employees, in performance of the contract, receive annual training (or once if the contract is for less than one year) in HUD information technology security policies, procedures, computer ethics, and best practices in accordance with HUD Handbook 2400.25.

    (j) Access to contractor's systems. The Contractor shall afford authorized personnel, including the Office of Inspector General, access to the Contractor's facilities, installations, operations, documentation (including the compliance matrix required under paragraph (i)(2) of this clause), databases, and personnel used in performance of the contract. Access shall be provided to the extent required to carry out, but not limited to, any information security program activities, investigation, and audit to safeguard against threats and hazards to the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of HUD data and systems, or to the function of information systems operated on behalf of HUD, and to preserve evidence of computer crime.

    (k) Contractor compliance with this clause. Failure on the part of the contractor to comply with the terms of this clause may result in termination of this contract for default.

    (l) Physical access to Federal Government facilities. The contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall also comply with the requirements of HUDAR clause 2452.237-75 when the contractor's or subcontractor's employees will perform any work under this contract on site in a HUD or other Federal Government facility.

    (m) Subcontracts. The contractor shall incorporate this clause in all subcontracts where the requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section are applicable to performance of the subcontract.

    (End of clause)
    33. Add section 2452.244-70 to read as follows:
    2452.244-70 Consent to subcontract.

    As prescribed in HUDAR Section 2444.204(a), insert the following clause in contracts and task orders with an estimated value exceeding $10,000,000.

    Consent to Subcontract (Mar 2016)

    (a) Due to the substantive nature of subcontracting that may be necessary during performance of this contract, the Contracting Officer has determined that a consent for individual subcontracts is required to adequately protect the Government. Consent is required for -

    (1) Cost-reimbursement, time-and-materials, or labor-hour subcontracts, or combination of such, in excess of $150,000 per year to a single subcontractor or consultant;

    (2) Fixed price subcontracts in excess of 25% of the annual contract value to a single subcontractor or consultant.

    (b) If subcontracts meeting the above parameters were not provided during the negotiation of the original contract award, the Contractor shall obtain post award consent and provide signed copies of the subcontract agreements within 10 days of consent.

    (c) The Contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with 30 days advance notification prior to changing subcontractors or existing subcontracting agreements, unless precluded due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. If advance notification is not feasible, the Contractor shall provide notification to the Contracting Officer no later than 10 days after the Contractor identifies the need to replace a subcontractor. The notification shall include a copy of the proposed new subcontracting agreement. Upon consent and finalization of the final subcontract agreement, the Contractor shall provide a copy of the signed agreement to the Contracting Officer.

    (d) The Contracting Officer's consent to a subcontract does not constitute a determination of the acceptability of the subcontract terms or price, or of the allowability of costs.

    (e) If not required elsewhere in the contract, no more than 30 calendar days after award, the Contractor shall provide a separate continuity of services plan to the Contracting Officer that will ensure services performed by subcontractors that cost more than 25% of the cost/price of the contract will continue uninterrupted in the event of performance problems or default by the subcontractor.

    (End of clause)
    Subpart 2452.3—Matrix
    34. Add subpart 2452.3, consisting of section 2452.3, to read as follows:
    2452.3 Provision and clause matrix. BILLING CODE 4210-67-P ER15MR16.000 ER15MR16.001 ER15MR16.002 ER15MR16.003 ER15MR16.004
    Dated: March 1, 2016. Nani A. Coloretti, Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05212 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-C
    81 50 Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 430 [Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051] RIN 1904-AD09 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces a public webinar to review the shipments model used in the analysis of the General Service Lamp notice of proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on March 23, 2016 at 1 p.m. EST until 3 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Webinar information is posted on the General Service Lamps Web site https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected] Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) will examine the shipments model used in the analysis of the General Service Lamp notice of proposed rulemaking. Key equations used in the shipments model will be presented, and their implementation in the modeling software will be discussed. The webinar will also include a few demonstrations of calculations conducted by the shipments software. Members of the public are welcome to participate in the webinar and comment on the use of DOE's analytical tools. Register for the webinar at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5166265762915808259. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2016-05825 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045] RIN 1904-AD28 Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fans: Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 13, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for ceiling fans energy conservation standards in the Federal Register. This document announces an extension of the public comment period for submitting comments on NOPR or any other aspect of the rulemaking for ceiling fans. The comment period is extended to April 14, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1687), is extended. DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this rulemaking received no later than April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0045 and/or Regulation Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AD28, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0045 and/or RIN 1904-AD28 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. [Please note that comments and CDs sent by mail are often delayed and may be damaged by mail screening processes.]

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    The rulemaking Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=5. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the regulation.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including public comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)-287-1604. Email: [email protected] In the Office of the General Counsel, contact Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 13, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for ceiling fans energy conservation standards in the Federal Register to make available and invite comments on the analysis for ceiling fans energy conservation standards. 81 FR 1687. The notice provided for the written submission of comments by March 14, 2016, and oral comments were also accepted at a public meeting held on February 3, 2016. At the public meeting, various stakeholders have requested an extension of the comment period to consider the NOPR, technical support documents and public meeting presentation, and to prepare and submit comments accordingly. On March 2, American Lighting Association sent a written request for 30-day comment period extension due additional testing manufacturers have to conduct to review their existing products against the ceiling fan test procedures SNOPR, published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2015, and the conservation standards NOPR.

    DOE has determined that an extension of the public comment period is appropriate based on the foregoing reason. DOE will consider any comments received by midnight of April 14, 2016, and deems any comments received by that time to be timely submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. [FR Doc. 2016-05824 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4866; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-33-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop and Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331 model turboprop engines and TSE331-3U model turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by the discovery of cracks in a 2nd stage compressor impeller during a routine shop visit. This proposed AD would require removal of the 2nd stage compressor impeller. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the compressor impeller, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4866; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-4866; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-33-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this NPRM.

    Discussion

    Several 2nd stage compressor impellers were found cracked in the aft curvic root radius when inspected during a routine shop visit. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the compressor impeller, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 4,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take 0 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We also estimate that required parts would cost about $1,513.25 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,053,000.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Honeywell International Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona): Docket No. FAA-2015-4866; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-33-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 16, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -8, -10, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10N, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, and -11U model turboprop engines, and TSE331-3U model turboshaft engines, with a 2nd stage compressor impeller, part number (P/N) 893482-1 through -5, inclusive, or P/N 3107056-1 or P/N 3107056-2, installed.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracks in a 2nd stage compressor impeller during a routine shop visit. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the compressor impeller, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Remove from service the 2nd stage compressor impeller within 200 cycles-in-service after the effective date of the AD, or before exceeding 7,000 cycles since last overhaul, whichever occurs later.

    (f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install a 2nd stage compressor impeller, part number (P/N) 893482-1 through -5, inclusive, or P/N 3107056-1 or P/N 3107056-2 into any engine.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 4, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05704 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 69 [Docket ID: DOD-2014-OS-0006] RIN 0790-AJ18 School Boards for DoD Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for the establishment and operation of elected school boards for elementary, middle and high schools operated by the DoD Education Activity in the Continental United States and the Territories, Possessions and Commonwealths. Specific direction is given to facilitate compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2164(d), as implemented by DoD Instruction 1342.25, regarding the election of board members, composition, roles and responsibilities, operating procedures and resolution of conflicts.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marsha Jacobson, 571-372-1900.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The revisions to this proposed rule will be reported in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

    Executive Summary I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    a. Purpose. The Department of Defense has many DoD Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) that require school boards to carry out the responsibilities and procedures described in this proposed rule.

    b. Succinct statement of legal authority for the regulatory action.

    Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to provide for the establishment of school boards at DDESS schools established under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2164. Pursuant to that direction, the Secretary of Defense issued DoD Instruction 1342.25, School Boards for Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS), dated October 30, 1996. This rule updates and revises the instruction in accordance with the changes to 10 U.S.C. 2164.

    II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question

    The major provisions of this regulatory action include:

    a. Providing a list of the duties and responsibilities school board members will perform.

    b. Describing the process of voting and electing school board members.

    c. Details the school board operating procedures, including written agendas, possible removal of school board members by USD(P&R), reimbursement for official travel, among other procedures discussed in this rule. The vast majority of the duties and responsibilities of school board members and the board operating procedures are unchanged, but several duties have been revised in accordance with various policy changes and legal limitations. In addition, one of the changes is due to the statutory change affecting the establishment of school boards in Puerto Rico and Guam.

    III. Costs and Benefits

    There are no additional costs associated with the implementation of this rule. This is a revised rule which provides updated guidance and clarification of the language in the statute. The establishment and operation of elected school boards for elementary, middle and high schools operated by the DoD Education Activity on military installations in the United States (including the territories, commonwealths, and possessions of the United States) remain the same. School Boards are elected by the parents of students attending the DoD schools. School Board members do not receive any monetary compensation for their services. Board members voluntarily serve as the conduit between the parents of students attending the DoD schools and the DoDEA District Superintendent who is responsible for overseeing the operation of the schools. The costs, if any, are only incidental costs. The rule primarily clarifies and updates existing activities with respect to School Board operations.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The rule does not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.

    Sec. 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This document will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601)

    The Department of Defense certifies that this proposed rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require us to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been certified that 32 CFR part 69 does not impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This proposed rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 69

    Elementary and secondary education, Government employees, and Military personnel.

    Accordingly 32 CFR part 69 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:

    Sec. 69.1 Purpose. 69.2 Applicability. 69.3 Definitions. 69.4 Policy. 69.5 Responsibilities. 69.6 Procedures. Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix, 10 U.S.C. 1783 and 2164.

    PART 69—SCHOOL BOARDS FOR DOD DOMESTIC DEPENDENT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS (DDESS)
    § 69.1 Purpose.

    This part establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for the establishment and operation of elected school boards for schools operated by the DoD in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2164.

    § 69.2 Applicability.

    This part:

    (a) Applies to:

    (1) Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD.

    (2) Schools (pre-kindergarten through grade 12) operated by the DoD in accordance with DoD Directive 1342.20, “Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)” (available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/134220p.pdf), and 10 U.S.C. 2164 within the United States and U.S. territories, possessions, and commonwealths.

    (b) Does not apply to elected school boards established under State or local law for DDESS special arrangements.

    § 69.3 Definitions.

    Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purposes of this part.

    Arrangements. Actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to provide a free public education to dependent children of active duty military members and civilian employees of the Federal Government in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2164 through DDESS arrangements or DDESS special arrangements.

    DDESS arrangement. An agreement whereby a school operated by the DoD under DoD Directive 1342.20 and 10 U.S.C. 2164 provides a free public education for eligible children.

    DDESS special arrangement. An agreement made in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2164 between the Secretary of Defense, and a local education agency whereby a school or a school system operated by the local education agency or private education agency provides educational services to eligible dependent children of active duty military members and full time DoD civilian employees. Arrangements result in partial or total federal funding to the local public education agency for the educational services provided.

    Parent. The biological father or mother of a child when parental rights have not been legally terminated; a person who, by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, has been declared the father or mother of a child by adoption; the legal guardian of a child; or a person in whose household a child resides, provided that such a person stands in loco parentis to that child and contributes at least one-half of the child's support.

    Quorum. A majority of the total number of school board members authorized on the particular school board.

    Special election. A special election is an election that is held between the regularly scheduled annual school board elections.

    § 69.4 Policy.

    It is DoD policy that:

    (a) Except for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (referred to in this part as “Puerto Rico”) and the Territory of Guam (referred to in this part as “Guam”), each DDESS arrangement must have an elected school board established and operated in accordance with DoD Directive 1342.20 and 10 U.S.C. 2164, and this part. One school board may be established for all such schools in Puerto Rico and in Guam.

    (b) Because members of DDESS elected school boards, when acting in the capacity as a school board member, are not U.S. Government employees or members of the military, they may not exercise discretionary governmental authority such as taking personnel actions or establishing governmental policies, or perform other inherently governmental functions.

    (c) The DDESS chain of supervision within DDESS for matters relating to DDESS arrangements operated in accordance with DoD Directive 1342.20 and 10 U.S.C. 2164 will be from the Director, DDESS, to the superintendent of each DDESS arrangement. The superintendent will inform the school board of all matters affecting the operation of the DDESS arrangement. Direct liaison among the school board, the Director, DDESS, and the superintendent is authorized for all matters pertaining to the DDESS arrangement.

    § 69.5 Responsibilities.

    (a) Under the authority, direction, and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), unless otherwise directed by statute, Presidential directive, or DoD policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (ASD(M&RA)) makes the final decision on all formal appeals to directives and other guidance submitted by the school board or superintendent.

    (b) Under the authority, direction, and control of the ASD(M&RA), the Director, DoD Education Activity (DoDEA), oversees DDESS arrangements and ensures implementation of the procedures in § 69.6.

    § 69.6 Procedures.

    (a) Implementation.

    (1) The Director, DDESS, will:

    (i) Oversee the establishment of elected school boards in DDESS arrangements, which, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2164(d)(6), need not comply with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Appendix, also known and referred to in this part as “The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972,” as amended.

    (ii) Monitor compliance by the superintendents and school boards with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and this part. In the event of suspected noncompliance, take appropriate action, which includes notifying the superintendent and the school board president of the affected DDESS arrangement.

    (iii) Determine when the actions of a school board conflict with an applicable statute, regulation, or other guidance or when there is a conflict in the views of the school board and the superintendent. When such conflicts occur, assist the superintendent and the school board in resolving them, or direct that such actions be discontinued. Such disapprovals must be in writing to the school board and the superintendent concerned and must state the specific supporting reason or reasons.

    (2) School board members will:

    (i) Participate in the development and oversight of fiscal, personnel, and educational policies, procedures, and programs for the DDESS arrangement concerned, consistent with this part.

    (ii) Approve agendas and prepare minutes for school board meetings. A copy of the approved minutes of school board meetings will be forwarded to the Director, DDESS, within 10 working days after the date the minutes are approved.

    (iii) Advise the Director, DDESS, in competitively filling any superintendent vacancy.

    (A) If the Director, DDESS, decides not to fill a superintendent vacancy, or to fill a vacancy through internal reassignment, school board members will be provided the opportunity for written comment to the Director, DDESS, on this issue and final determination will be made by the Director, DDESS.

    (B) If the Director, DDESS, elects to fill a superintendent vacancy competitively, each school board in the respective school district may, at the school board's discretion, provide one school board representative (i.e., the school board president) to participate as a member of the DDESS Director's selection panel. The school board representative to a selection panel must be either a full-time or permanent part-time government employee, a military member, or a member of a military family, so that the selection panel will not be considered an advisory committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 10 U.S.C. 1783.

    (C) In advising the Director, DDESS, the selection panel will provide advice to the Director, DDESS, by reviewing applications for the superintendent vacancy, preparing a list of qualified candidates, interviewing candidates, and ranking the list of recommended candidates for the DDESS Director's selection.

    (iv) Prepare and provide to the Director, DDESS, an annual written review of the superintendent's performance based on established critical elements. This advisory review may be provided to the superintendent or inserted into the final comments of the performance review.

    (v) Participate in the development of the district's budget to submit to the Director, DDESS, for his or her approval. Oversee the approved budget, in conjunction with the superintendent, as appropriate for operation of the school arrangement.

    (vi) Invite the superintendent to attend all school board meetings.

    (vii) Provide advice to the superintendent on the operation of the schools and the implementation of the approved budget.

    (viii) Channel communications with school employees to the superintendent. Refer all applications, complaints, and other communications, oral or written, to the superintendent.

    (ix) Participate in the development of school policies, rules, and regulations in conjunction with the superintendent, and recommend which policies will be reflected in the school policy manual. The school policy manual, which will be issued by the superintendent, may include:

    (A) A statement of the school philosophy.

    (B) The roles and responsibilities of school administrative and educational personnel.

    (C) Provisions for publishing an annual school calendar.

    (D) Provisions on instructional services, including policies to develop and adopt curriculum and textbooks.

    (E) Regulations affecting students, including attendance, grading, promotion, retention, and graduation criteria, and the student code of rights, responsibilities, and conduct.

    (F) School policy on community relations and non-instructional services, including maintenance and custodial services, food services, and student transportation.

    (G) School policy and legal limits on financial operations, including accounting, disbursing, contracting, and procurement; personnel operations, including conditions of employment and labor management regulations; and the processing of, and response to, complaints.

    (H) Procedures providing for new school board member orientation.

    (I) Any other matters the school board and the superintendent determine to be necessary.

    (x) Prepare and submit formal appeals to directives and other guidance that, in the view of the school board, adversely impact the operation of the DDESS either through the operation and management of DDESS or a specific DDESS arrangement in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2164.

    (A) Written formal appeals with justification and supporting documentation must be submitted by the school board or superintendent to the ASD(M&RA).

    (B) The ASD(M&RA) will make the final decision on all formal appeals on matters pertaining to his or her charter directive.

    (C) The Director, DDESS, will provide the appealing body a written review of the findings relating to the merits of the appeal.

    (D) Formal appeals will be handled expeditiously by all parties to minimize any adverse impact on the operation of the DDESS arrangement.

    (xi) Enforce school board operating procedures.

    (b) Composition of the School Board.

    (1) To be a school board member, an individual must be a resident of the military installation at which the DDESS arrangement is located or, in the case of candidates for school boards in Puerto Rico and Guam, be the parent of an eligible child currently enrolled in the DDESS arrangement; cannot be employed by the DDESS arrangement; and cannot be a registered federal lobbyist.

    (2) The school board will recommend to the Director, DDESS, the number of elected school board voting members, which must be no fewer than three and no more than nine, depending upon local needs. The members of the school board will select by majority vote of the total number of school board members authorized at the beginning of each official school board term, one member to act as president and another to act as vice president.

    (i) The president and vice president will each serve for 1 year.

    (ii) The president will preside over school board meetings and provide leadership for related activities and functions.

    (iii) The vice president will serve in the absence of the president.

    (iv) If the position of president is vacated for any reason, the vice president will assume the position of president until the position is either vacated or the next annual/regularly-scheduled school board election, whichever occurs first.

    (v) The resulting vacancy in the position of the vice president will be filled by the majority vote of all members of the incumbent board.

    (3) School board members, with the exception of travel and per diem related to official school board business, may not receive compensation for their service on the school board.

    (4) School board members may not have any financial interest in any company or organization doing business with DDESS. Waivers to this restriction may be granted on a case-by-case basis by the Director, DDESS, in coordination with the Office of General Counsel of the DoDEA.

    (5) The DDESS arrangement superintendent will serve as a non-voting observer to all school board meetings.

    (6) The installation commander will:

    (i) Serve as a non-voting observer to the school board.

    (ii) Convey command concerns to the school board and the superintendent and keep the school board and the superintendent informed of changes and other matters within the host installation that affect school expenditures or operations.

    (c) School Board Electorate. School board members will be elected by parents of students who attend the school. Each parent will have one vote.

    (d) Election of School Board Members.

    (1) The superintendent, in consultation with the school board, will be responsible for developing the plans for nominating school board members and conducting the school board election and the special election process. The superintendent will announce election results within 7 working days of the election.

    (2) The school board will determine a schedule for regular elections.

    (i) Parents will have adequate notice of the time and place of the election.

    (ii) Military members in a deployed or official tour of duty status at the time of the election may use email or other electronic means to cast a vote by absentee ballot, provided that the absentee ballot is received by the district superintendent prior to the close of the scheduled election.

    (iii) The superintendent must not disclose the particular vote of any absentee voter.

    (iv) All other votes must be cast in person by secret ballot at the time and place of the election.

    (v) The candidates(s) receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected as school board member(s).

    (3) Each candidate for school board membership must be nominated in writing by a member of the school board electorate. Votes may be cast at the time of election for a write-in candidate who has not filed a nomination petition if the write-in candidate is qualified to serve in the position sought.

    (4) The school board will determine the term of office for elected members, not to exceed 3 years, and the limit on the number of consecutive terms, if any. If the board fails to set these terms by the first day of the first full month of the school year, the terms will be set at 3 years, with a maximum of two consecutive terms.

    (5) When there is a sufficient number of school board vacancies that result in not having a quorum, a special election must be called by the superintendent.

    (i) The nomination and election procedures for a special election will be the same as those of regularly scheduled school board elections.

    (ii) Individuals elected by special election will serve until the next regularly scheduled school board election.

    (iii) Vacancies may occur due to the school board member's resignation, death, removal for cause, or transfer, or the disenrollment of a school board member's child(ren) from the DDESS arrangement.

    (6) The election process will provide staggered terms for board members (e.g., on the last day of the last month of each year, the term for some board members will expire).

    (e) School Board Operating Procedures.

    (1) The school board must operate from a written agenda at all meetings. Matters not placed on the agenda before the start of the meeting, but approved by a majority of the school board present, may be considered at the ongoing meeting and added to the agenda at that time.

    (2) A majority of the total number of school board members authorized will constitute a quorum.

    (3) School board meetings must be conducted a minimum of four times a year. The school board president consistent with government-wide guidelines concerning the timely announcement of public meetings, should notify the school board members and the public of the scheduled board meeting not less than 5 calendar days before the meeting is scheduled. School board meetings will generally be open to the public. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2164(d)(6), a school board need not comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, but may close meetings as permitted by the Act.

    (4) The school board will not be bound in any way by any action or statement of an individual member or group of members of the board, except when such action or statement is approved by a majority of the school board members during a meeting.

    (5) Elected school board members may be removed by the USD(P&R), for dereliction of duty, malfeasance, or other grounds for cause shown. This authority may not be delegated below the level of the ASD(M&RA).

    (i) The school board concerned may recommend such removal with a two-thirds majority vote.

    (ii) Before a school board member may be removed, the member must be afforded due process, to include written notification of the basis for the action, review of the evidence or documentation considered by the school board, and an opportunity to respond.

    Dated: March 8, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05600 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; FXMB12330900000//167//FF09M13200] RIN 1018-BB23 Revision of Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Duck Stamp) Contest Regulations AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the comment period for our February 11, 2016, proposed rule to change the regulations governing the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest). This action will allow interested persons additional time to comment on the proposal. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7279), is extended. We will accept comments from all interested parties until March 21, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Document availability: You may obtain a copy of the proposed rule on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161.

    Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate the document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0161; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We will post all comments onhttp://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Fellows, (703) 358-2145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comments

    We will accept written comments during this extended comment period on our proposed revisions to the annual Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Contest (also known as the Federal Duck Stamp Contest), that was published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7279). We will consider comments and information that we receive from all interested parties on or before the close of the comment period (see DATES).

    If you have already submitted comments during the public comment period that began February 11, 2016, please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our final rule.

    You may submit your comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Background

    On February 11, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 7279) regarding changes to the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 91 concerning the Federal Duck Stamp Contest. Specifically, our amendments would update our contact information; update the common names and spellings of species on our list of potential contest design subjects; correct minor grammar errors; and update the regulations to require the inclusion of an appropriate secondary non-waterfowl migratory bird species on entries beginning with the 2016 contest.

    During the course of the comment period, we received a request to extend the 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule beyond the March 14, 2016, closing date. In order to provide all interested parties an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed rule, we are extending the comment period on the proposed rule for an additional 7 days, until March 21, 2016.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 718a et seq.).

    Dated: March 8, 2016. Karen Hyun, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05694 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    81 50 Tuesday, March 15, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-SC-16-0022] Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing a meeting of the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (Committee). The meeting is being convened to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable industry issues and to provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can tailor programs and services to better meet the needs of the U.S. produce industry. The meeting is open to the public. This notice sets forth the schedule and location for the meeting.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, April 6, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and Thursday, April 7, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Committee meeting will be held in the Fairfax/Prince William Conference Room at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel @ Ronald Reagan National Airport, 2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Stanziani, Designated Federal Official, USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program; Telephone: (202) 720-3334; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App.), the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Committee in 2001, to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and to provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs. The Committee was re-chartered in July 2015, for a two-year period.

    AMS Deputy Administrator for the Specialty Crops Program, Charles Parrott, serves as the Committee's Manager. Representatives from USDA mission areas and other government agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry are periodically called upon to participate in the Committee's meetings as determined by the Committee. AMS is giving notice of the Committee meeting to the public so that they may attend and present their views. The meeting is open to the public.

    Public Comments: All written public comments must be submitted electronically by March 21, 2016, for the Committee's consideration to Pamela Stanziani at [email protected] or to www.regulations.gov, or mailed to: 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2077-South, STOP 0235, Washington, DC 20250-0235. The meeting will be recorded, and information about obtaining a transcript will be provided at the meeting.

    Agenda items may include, but are not limited to, welcome and introductions, administrative matters, progress reports from committee working group chairs and/or vice chairs, potential working group recommendation discussion and proposal, and presentations by subject matter experts as requested by the Committee.

    Meeting Accommodations: The Hyatt Regency Crystal City Hotel @ Ronald Reagan National Airport is ADA compliant and provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this public meeting, please notify Pamela Stanziani at [email protected] or (202) 720-3334, by March 21, 2016. Determinations for reasonable accommodations will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05799 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-039] Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Bordas at (202) 482-3813, John Corrigan at (202) 482-7438, or Emily Maloof at (202) 482-5649, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 16, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a countervailing duty investigation on certain amorphous silica fabric from the People's Republic of China.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than April 21, 2016.

    1See Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 81 FR 8909 (February 23, 2016).

    Postponement of the Preliminary Determinations

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension in accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation.

    On March 8, 2016, Petitioner 2 submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e) to postpone the preliminary determination.3 In its request, Petitioner states: “Due to the number and nature of subsidy programs under investigation, and due to the fact that the Department has sent quantity and value questionnaires to select mandatory respondents, Petitioner believes that the normal 65-day deadline for a preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation would not provide sufficient time for the Department to examine adequately the amount of subsidies that producers and exporters of subject merchandise in China receive.” 4

    2 Auburn Manufacturing, Inc.

    3See Letter from Petitioner, “Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Request to Extend the Deadline for the Preliminary Determination,” dated March 8, 2016.

    4Id., at 1.

    For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to no later than 130 days after the day on which the investigation was initiated. As a result, the Department will issue its preliminary determination no later than June 27, 2016.5 In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    5 The deadline based on a 65-day extension would be June 25, 2016, which is a Saturday. Department practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05810 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness; Public Meetings AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on April 20, 2016, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and April 21, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings on April 20 and 21 will be held at the Port of Houston Authority, Executive Office Building, Boardroom, 111 East Loop North, Houston, Texas 77029.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email: [email protected])

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Committee was established under the discretionary authority of the Secretary of Commerce and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). It provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce on the necessary elements of a comprehensive policy approach to supply chain competitiveness designed to support U.S. export growth and national economic competitiveness, encourage innovation, facilitate the movement of goods, and improve the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains for goods and services in the domestic and global economy; and provides advice to the Secretary on regulatory policies and programs and investment priorities that affect the competitiveness of U.S. supply chains. For more information about the Committee visit: http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/.

    Matters to Be Considered: Committee members are expected to continue to discuss the major competitiveness-related topics raised at the previous Committee meetings, including trade and competitiveness; freight movement and policy; information technology and data requirements; regulatory issues; finance and infrastructure; and workforce development. The Committee's subcommittees will report on the status of their work regarding these topics. The agendas may change to accommodate Committee business. The Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services will post the final detailed agendas on its Web site, http://trade.gov/td/services/oscpb/supplychain/acscc/, at least one week prior to the meeting. The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or [email protected] five (5) business days before the meeting.

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to [email protected]

    For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on April 8, 2016. Comments received after April 8, 2016, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.

    Dated: March 8, 2016. Bruce Harsh, Acting Director, Office of Supply Chain and Professional & Business Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05780 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE459 Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery Actions in Relation to the Southeastern United States Shrimp Fishery and To Conduct Public Scoping Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and conduct public scoping meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    We (NMFS) intend to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and to conduct public scoping meetings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by assessing potential impacts resulting from the proposed implementation of new sea turtle regulatory requirements in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States. These requirements are proposed to protect threatened and endangered sea turtles in the western Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from incidental capture, and would be implemented under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

    DATES:

    The public scoping period starts March 15, 2016 and will continue until April 29, 2016. We will consider all written comments received or postmarked by April 29, 2016, in defining the scope of the EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Verbal comments will be accepted at the scoping meetings as specified below.

    ADDRESSES:

    We will hold public scoping meetings to provide the public with an opportunity to present verbal comments on the scope of the EIS and to learn more about the proposed action from NMFS officials. Scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:

    1. Morehead City—Crystal Coast Civic Center, 3505 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557. 2. Larose—Larose Regional Park and Civic Center, 307 East 5th Street, Larose, LA 70373. 3. Belle Chasse—Belle Chasse Auditorium, 8398 Highway 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037. 4. Biloxi—Biloxi Visitor's Center, 1050 Beach Boulevard, Biloxi, MS 39530. 5. Bayou La Batre—Bayou La Batre Community Center, 12745 Padgett Switch Road, Bayou La Batre, AL 36509.

    The meeting dates are:

    1. April 13, 2016, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Morehead City, NC. 2. April 18, 2016, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Larose, LA. 3. April 19, 2016, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Belle Chasse, LA. 4. April 20, 2016, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Biloxi, MS. 5. April 21, 2016, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Bayou La Batre, AL.

    In addition to the five scoping meetings, we will also submit a scoping document to the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions.

    Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent electronically via email to [email protected], or physically via U.S. mail to Michael Barnette, Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, 263 13th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505. Additional information, including a scoping document, can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/regulations.htm.

    All comments, whether offered verbally in person at the scoping meetings or in writing as described above, will be considered.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Barnette, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, at the address above, or at (727) 824-5312.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA. The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) are listed as endangered. The green (Chelonia mydas) and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean distinct population segment (DPS) of the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green sea turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered; on March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15271), NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to remove the existing ESA listings for the green sea turtle and, in their place, list three endangered (Mediterranean, Central West Pacific and Central South Pacific) and eight threatened (North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Southwest Indian, North Indian, East Indian-West Pacific, Southwest Pacific, Central North Pacific, and East Pacific) DPSs.

    Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and some are killed, as a result of numerous activities, including fishery-related trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under the ESA and its implementing regulations, the taking of sea turtles is prohibited, with exceptions identified in 50 CFR 223.206(d), or according to the terms and conditions of a biological opinion issued under section 7 of the ESA, or according to an incidental take permit issued under section 10 of the ESA. The incidental taking of threatened turtles during shrimp trawling is exempted from the taking prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle conservation regulations (50 CFR 223.205) are followed. The regulations require most vessels defined as “shrimp trawlers” (50 CFR 222.102) operating in the southeastern United States (Atlantic or Gulf area, see 50 CFR 223.206) to have a NMFS-approved TED installed in each net that is rigged for fishing to allow sea turtles to escape. TEDs currently approved include single-grid hard TEDs and hooped hard TEDs conforming to a generic description, and one type of soft TED—the Parker soft TED (see 50 CFR 223.207). Most approved hard TEDs are described in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a)) according to generic criteria based upon certain parameters of TED design, configuration, and installation, including height and width dimensions of the TED opening through which the turtles escape. The regulations also describe additional hard TEDs' specific requirements. Skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls), however, may employ alternative tow time restrictions in lieu of TEDs, pursuant to 50 CFR 223.206(d)(2)(ii)(A). The alternative tow time restrictions limit tow times to 55 minutes from April 1 through October 31, and 75 minutes from November 1 through March 31.

    TEDs incorporate an escape opening, usually covered by a webbing flap, which allows sea turtles to escape from trawl nets. To be approved, a TED design must be shown to be 97 percent effective in excluding sea turtles during testing based upon NMFS-approved scientific testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)). NMFS-approved testing protocols established to date include the “small turtle test” (55 FR 41092, October 9, 1990) and the “wild turtle test” (52 FR 24244, June 29, 1987). Additionally, we have established a leatherback model testing protocol to evaluate a candidate TED's ability to exclude adult leatherback sea turtles (66 FR 24287, May 14, 2001). Because testing with live leatherbacks is impossible, we obtained the carapace measurements of 15 nesting female leatherback turtles and used these data to construct an aluminum pipe-frame model of a leatherback turtle measuring 40 inches (101.6 cm) in width, 60 inches (152.4 cm) in length, and 21 inches (53.3 cm) in height. If the leatherback model and a diver with full scuba gear are able to pass through the escape opening of a candidate TED, that escape opening is judged to be capable of excluding adult leatherback sea turtles, as well as other large adult sea turtles.

    On June 24, 2011 (76 FR 37050), we published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping meetings on potential measures to reduce sea turtle bycatch in the shrimp fisheries. On May 10, 2012 (77 FR 27411), we published a proposed rule that, if implemented, would require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) to use TEDs in their nets. We also prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), which included a description of the purpose and need for evaluating the proposed action and other potential management alternatives, the scientific methodology and data used in the analyses, background information on the physical, biological, human, and administrative environments, and a description of the effects of the proposed action and other potential management alternatives on the aforementioned environments; a notice of its availability was published on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 29636). At the time the DEIS was prepared, information on the effects of the skimmer trawl fisheries on sea turtle populations was extremely limited. New information gained after the preparation of the DEIS indicated that a significant number of sea turtles observed interacting with the skimmer trawl fishery had a body depth that would allow them to pass between the required maximum four-inch (10.16-cm) bar spacing of a standard TED and proceed into the back of the net (i.e., they would not escape the trawl net). Therefore, the conservation benefit of expanding the TED requirement to skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets was much less than originally anticipated. As a result, we determined that a final rule to withdraw the alternative tow time restriction and require all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets to use TEDs was not warranted (February 7, 2013; 78 FR 9024).

    Following the withdrawal of the final rule, we initiated additional TED testing, evaluating both small sea turtle exclusion and shrimp retention within the skimmer trawl fishery. This testing has produced a TED grid with narrow bar spacing (i.e., less than the current four-inch bar spacing maximum) and escape-opening flap specifications that would allow small turtles to effectively escape the trawl net, which could be employed by skimmer and otter trawlers in areas where these small turtles occur.

    Purpose of This Action

    NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. We are considering a variety of regulatory measures to reduce the bycatch of threatened and endangered sea turtles in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States in light of concerns regarding the effectiveness of existing TED regulations in protecting sea turtles. This EIS will provide background information and specifically evaluate the alternatives and impacts associated with any considered management alternative. This rulemaking would be implemented pursuant to the ESA. We are seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives, associated significant impacts of any alternatives, and suitable mitigation measures.

    Scope of the Action

    The EIS is expected to identify and evaluate the relevant significant impacts and issues associated with implementing new sea turtle regulations for the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and NOAA's procedures for implementing NEPA found in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, dated May 20, 1999.

    Alternatives

    We will evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives in the EIS to reduce sea turtle bycatch and mortality in the shrimp fishery of the southeastern United States. In addition to evaluating the status quo, we will evaluate several other alternatives. These alternatives include, but are not necessarily limited to: requiring all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets (butterfly trawls) in both the Atlantic and Gulf areas to use either modified TEDs with narrow bar spacing (i.e., less than the current four-inch bar spacing maximum) or standard TEDs; requiring all skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets in both the Atlantic and Gulf areas to use modified TEDs with narrow bar spacing; requiring all trawlers (i.e., otter trawls, skimmer trawls, pusher-head trawls, and wing nets) fishing in specific areas where small sea turtles occur to use modified TEDs with narrow bar spacing; as well as time and area closures affecting all shrimp vessels. Potential new TED requirements could apply to vessels fishing in both state and Federal waters.

    Public Comments

    We are providing this notice to advise the public and other agencies of our intentions and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of the significant issues to include in the EIS. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action and all substantive issues are identified. We request that comments be as specific as possible. In particular, we are seeking information regarding the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human environment from the proposed action. The human environment is defined as “. . . the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment” (40 CFR 1508.14). In the context of the EIS, the human environment could include air quality, water quality, underwater noise levels, socioeconomic resources, fisheries, and environmental justice.

    Comments concerning this environmental review process should be directed to us (see ADDRESSES). All comments and material received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

    Authority

    The environmental review of the proposed action will be conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NOAA and NMFS for compliance with those regulations.

    Scoping Meetings Code of Conduct

    The public is asked to follow the following code of conduct at the scoping meetings. At the beginning of each meeting, our representative will explain the ground rules (e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the meeting room; attendees will be called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and attendees may not interrupt one another). Our representative will structure the meeting so that all attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s). Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not will be asked to leave the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    The scoping meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to our representative (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Vietnamese translation services will be provided at the Louisiana and Mississippi public hearings.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05769 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE475 SAW-SARC 61 Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) will convene the 61st SAW Stock Assessment Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the stock assessment of Atlantic surfclam. The Northeast Regional SAW is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by SAW working groups and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts called the Stock Assessment Review Committee, or SARC. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.

    DATES:

    The public portion of the Stock Assessment Review Committee Meeting will be held from July 19, 2016, through July 21, 2016. The meeting will commence on July 19, 2016, at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the daily meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the S.H. Clark Conference Room in the Aquarium Building of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheena Steiner, 508-495-2177; email: [email protected]; or, James Weinberg, 508-495-2352; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please visit the NEFSC Web site at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov. For additional information about the SARC meeting and the stock assessment review of Atlantic surfclam, please visit the NMFS/NEFSC SAW Web page at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/.

    DAILY MEETING AGENDA—SAW/SARC 61 Benchmark Stock Assessment for Atlantic Surfclam (Subject to Change. All Times Are Approximate, and May Be Changed at the Discretion of the SARC Chair). Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Welcome Introductions James Weinberg, SAW Chair. 10:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Surfclam Assessment Presentation Dan Hennen. 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Lunch 1 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Surfclam Presentation (cont.) Dan Hennen. 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m.-5:45 p.m. Surfclam SARC Discussion Michael Wilberg, SARC Chair. 5:45 p.m.-6 p.m. Public Comment Period Wednesday, July 20, 2016 9 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Revisit with Presenters SARC Chair. 10:45 a.m.-11 a.m. Break 11 a.m.-11:45 a.m. Revisit with Presenters SARC Chair. 11:45 a.m.-12 p.m. Public Comment Period 12 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Lunch 1:15 p.m.-4 p.m. Review/Edit Assessment Summary Report SARC Chair. 4-4:15 p.m. Break 4:15 p.m.-5 p.m. SARC Report Writing SARC Chair. Thursday, July 21, 2016 9 a.m.-5 p.m. SARC Report Writing SARC Chair.

    The meeting is open to the public; however, during the `SARC Report Writing' sessions on July 20 and 21, the public should not engage in discussion with the SARC.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Sheena Steiner at the NEFSC, 508-495-2177, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05801 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS®) Advisory Committee (Committee) in Washington, DC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 5, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on Wednesday, April 6, 2016, from 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. These times and the agenda topics described below are subject to change. Refer to the Web page listed below for the most up-to-date meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 1201 New York Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Snowden, Designated Federal Official, U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee, U.S. IOOS Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Second Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910; Phone 240-533-9466; Fax 301-713-3281; Email [email protected] or visit the U.S. IOOS Advisory Committee Web site at http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/advisorycommittee.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established by the NOAA Administrator as directed by Section 12304 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-11). The Committee advises the NOAA Administrator and the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) on matters related to the responsibilities and authorities set forth in section 12302 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 and other appropriate matters as the Under Secretary refers to the Committee for review and advice. The Committee will provide advice on:

    (a) Administration, operation, management, and maintenance of the System;

    (b) expansion and periodic modernization and upgrade of technology components of the System;

    (c) identification of end-user communities, their needs for information provided by the System, and the System's effectiveness in dissemination information to end-user communities and to the general public; and

    (d) any other purpose identified by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere or the Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.

    The meeting will be open to public participation with a 30-minute public comment period on April 5, 2016, from 4:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and on April 6, 2016, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. (check agenda on Web site to confirm time.) The Committee expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by the Designated Federal Official by March 22, 2016 to provide sufficient time for Committee review. Written comments received after March 22, 2016, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date. Seats will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will focus on ongoing committee priorities, including messaging IOOS to a new administration, incorporating more biological data variables, and increasing engagement with industry. This meeting will also focus specifically on how the U.S. IOOS federal agencies may better leverage their existing assets. The agenda is subject to change. The latest version will be posted at http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/advisorycommittee.

    Special Accomodations: These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jessica Snowden, Designated Federal Official at 240-533-9466 by March 22, 2016.

    Dated: March 1, 2016. Zdenka Willis, Director, U.S. IOOS Program, National Ocean Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05782 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE477 SAW-SARC 62 Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) will convene the 62nd SAW Stock Assessment Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the stock assessments of Black Sea Bass and Witch Flounder. The Northeast Regional SAW is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by SAW working groups and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts called the Stock Assessment Review Committee, or SARC. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.

    DATES:

    The public portion of the Stock Assessment Review Committee Meeting will be held from November 29, 2016-December 2, 2016. The meeting will commence on November 29, 2016 at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the daily meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the S.H. Clark Conference Room in the Aquarium Building of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheena Steiner, 508-495-2177; email: [email protected]; or, James Weinberg, 508-495-2352; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please visit the NEFSC Web site at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov. For additional information about the SARC meeting and the stock assessment review of Black Sea Bass and Witch Flounder, please visit the NMFS/NEFSC SAW Web page at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/.

    DAILY MEETING AGENDA—SAW/SARC 62 Benchmark Stock Assessment for Black Sea Bass and Witch Flounder (Subject to Change. All Times Are Approximate, and May Be Changed at the Discretion of the SARC Chair). Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Welcome Introductions James Weinberg, SAW Chair. 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Black Sea Bass Assessment Presentation Gary Shepherd. 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. BSB Presentation (cont.) Gary Shepherd. 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Break 3:45 p.m.-5:45 p.m. BSB SARC Discussion SARC Chair. 5:45 p.m.-6 p.m. Public Comment Period Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Witch Flounder (WF) Assessment Presentation Susan Wigley. 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m.-12:30 p.m. WF Presentation (cont.) Susan Wigley. 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Lunch 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. WF SARC Discussion SARC Chair. 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Public Comment Period 3:45 p.m.-4 p.m. Break 4 p.m.-6 p.m. BSB SARC Discussion SARC Chair. Thursday, December 1, 2016 8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Revisit WF with Presenters SARC Chair. 10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Review/Edit BSB Assessment Summary Report SARC Chair. 12:15 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Lunch 1:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m. BSB Assessment Summary (cont.) SARC Chair. 2:45 p.m.-3 p.m. Break 3 p.m.-6 p.m. Review/Edit WF Assessment Summary Report SARC Chair. Friday, December 2, 2016 9 a.m.-5 p.m. SARC Report Writing SARC Chair.

    The meeting is open to the public; however, during the `SARC Report Writing' sessions on December 1 and 2, the public should not engage in discussion with the SARC.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Sheena Steiner at the NEFSC, 508-495-2177, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05800 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE205 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Eel Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of withdrawal of federal moratorium.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the withdrawal of the Federal moratorium on fishing for American eel in the State waters of Delaware. NMFS withdraws the moratorium, as required by the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), based on the determination that Delaware is now in compliance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Eel.

    DATES:

    Effective March 15, 2016

    ADDRESSES:

    Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Derek Orner, Fishery Management Specialist, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 427-8567; [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 6, 2015, the Commission found that the State of Delaware was out of compliance with the Commission's American Eel Plan. Specifically, the Commission found that Delaware had not implemented regulations that are necessary to rebuild the depleted American eel stock, and to ensure sustainable commercial and recreational harvest while preventing over-harvest of any eel life stage. The Commission forwarded its findings of their August 6th vote in a formal non-compliance referral letter that was received by NMFS on August 19, 2015. On September 18, 2015, NMFS notified the State of Delaware and the Commission of its determination that Delaware failed to carry out its responsibilities under the Commission's American Eel Plan and that the measures Delaware had failed to implement and enforce are necessary for the conservation of the eel resource. In this determination and notification, NMFS detailed the actions necessary to avoid the implementation of a Federal moratorium for eel in Delaware waters. Details of this determination were provided in a Federal Register notice published on September 23, 2015 (80 FR 57343), and are not repeated here.

    Activities Pursuant to the Atlantic Coastal Act

    The Atlantic Coastal Act specifies that, if, after a moratorium is declared with respect to a State, the Secretary is notified by the Commission that it is withdrawing the determination of noncompliance, the Secretary shall immediately determine whether the State is in compliance with the applicable plan. If the State is determined to be in compliance, the moratorium shall be withdrawn. On February 4, 2016, NMFS received a letter from the Commission that Delaware had taken corrective action to comply with the American Eel Plan, and that the Commission has withdrawn its determination of noncompliance.

    Withdrawal of the Moratorium

    Based on the Commission's February 2, 2016, letter, information received from the State of Delaware, and NMFS review of Delaware's revised American eel regulations, NMFS concurs with the Commission's determination that Delaware is now in compliance with the American Eel Plan. Specifically, NMFS reviewed the ASMFC Eel Plan and Delaware's recently approved American eel management measures. The management measures implement a program that is consistent with the American eel management program set by the Commission to conserve eels and achieve the objectives specified in the Plan. Therefore, we concur with the Commission's finding that Delaware is now in compliance and that a moratorium is no longer necessary to conserve the fishery. The moratorium scheduled to be effective on March 18, 2016, on fishing for, possession of, and landing of American eel by the recreational and commercial fishermen within Delaware waters is withdrawn.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05804 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2016-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is proposing a new information collection titled, “Financial Well-Being National Survey.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before April 14, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    OMB: Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 or fax to (202) 395-5806. Mailed or faxed comments to OMB should be to the attention of the OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Please note that comments submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. In general, all comments received will become public records, including any personal information provided. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or social security numbers, should not be included.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at www.reginfo.gov (this link active on the day following publication of this notice). Select “Information Collection Review,” under “Currently under review, use the dropdown menu “Select Agency” and select “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” (recent submissions to OMB will be at the top of the list). The same documentation is also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Requests for additional information should be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, (202) 435-9575, or email: [email protected] Please do not submit comments to this email box.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Financial Well-Being National Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-XXXX.

    Type of Review: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number).

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,115.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,038.

    Abstract: Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, the Bureau's Office of Financial Education (OFE) is responsible for developing and implementing a strategy to improve the financial literacy of consumers that includes measurable goals and initiatives, in consultation with the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, consistent with the National Strategy for Financial Literacy. In addition, the Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans (OA) within the CFPB is charged with conducting research to identify methods and strategies to educate and counsel seniors, and developing goals for programs that provide seniors with financial literacy and counseling.

    Through prior research, the CFPB has determined that improvement in consumer financial well-being is the ultimate goal of such financial literacy initiatives. To inform our identification and development of financial literacy strategies that explicitly seek to improve consumer financial well-being, the CFPB plans to conduct a nationally representative survey to measure adult financial well-being and related concepts, as well as an oversample of adults age 62 and older to gather additional data relevant to the needs and experiences of older consumers. The specific goals of the survey are to (1) measure the level of financial well-being of American adults and key sub-populations; (2) quantitatively test previously developed hypotheses about the specific types of knowledge, behavior, traits and skills that may support higher levels of financial well-being; and (3) produce fully de-identified public use data files that will allow external researchers to examine additional questions about financial well-being and its drivers.

    Request for Comments: The Bureau issued a 60-day Federal Register notice on November 24, 2015, (80 FR 73169). Comments were solicited and continue to be invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Bureau, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the Bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methods and the assumptions used; (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 8, 2016. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05767 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulation System [Docket Number 2015-0039] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 14, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Forms, and OMB Number: Safeguarding Covered Defense Information, Cyber Incident Reporting, and Cloud Computing; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Parts 204 and 239, and related clauses at DFARS 252; OMB Control Number 0704-0478.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 10,954.

    Responses per Respondent: 5.5, approximately.

    Annual Responses: 60,494.

    Average Burden per Response: 4.15 hours, approximately.

    Annual Burden Hours: 250,840.

    Needs and Uses: This requirement provides for the collection of information related to reporting of cyber incidents on unclassified networks or information systems, within cloud computing services, and when they affect contractors designated as providing operationally critical support as required by statute.

    a. The clause at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, requires contractors to report cyber incidents that affect a covered contractor information system or the covered defense information residing therein.

    b. The provision at DFARS 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls, requires an offeror that proposes to deviate from any of the security controls of National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-171 in effect at the time the solicitation is issued, the offeror must submit to the contracting officer a written explanation of how the specified security control is not applicable or an alternative control or protective measure is used to achieve equivalent protection.

    c. The provision at DFARS 252.239-7009, Representation of Use of Cloud Computing, requires contractors to report that they “anticipate” or “do not anticipate” utilizing cloud computing service in performance of the resultant contract in order to notify contracting officers of the applicability of the requirement in the clause at DFARS 252.239-7010.

    d. The clause at DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services, requires reporting of cyber incidents that occur when DoD is purchasing cloud computing services.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Public Collections Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05814 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-HA-0020] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Defense Health Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Health Agency proposes to alter an existing system of records, EDHA 11, entitled “Defense Medical Human Resources System internet (DMHRSi).” This system consolidates all of the human resources functions and permits ready access to manpower, personnel readiness, labor cost assignment, and education and training information across the DoD medical enterprise. This system of records provides a single database source of instant query/access for all personnel types and the readiness posture of all DoD medical personnel.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before April 14, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Audit Matters Office, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-9010.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Linda S. Thomas, Chief, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101, or by phone at (703) 681-7500.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Defense Health Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/. The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on March 3, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EDHA 11 System name:

    Defense Medical Human Resources System internet (DMHRSi) (November 19, 2014, 79 FR 68872).

    Changes

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with: “Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 222042-5101.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Active Duty Military, Reserve, National Guard, civilian employees who are assigned to or are part of the Military Health System or the Defense Health Agency (DHA), and includes non-appropriated fund employees, DoD contractors, and volunteers.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual's name, date of birth, Social Security Number (SSN) and/or DoD Identification (ID) Number, National Provider Identifier (NPI), Common Access Card (CAC) expiration date, gender, place of birth, citizenship, home address, home telephone number, business email address, work address, work telephone number, race/ethnicity, marital status, medical training information including class names and class dates, military rank information, specialty, licensure, educational background, personnel security clearance data, medical readiness training and other health information required to determine an individual's fitness to perform their duties.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. 301, Departmental Regulations; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; E.O. 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities; DoDD 5136.01, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)); DoDI 1322.24, Medical Readiness Training; DoD 6010.13-M, Medical Expense and Performance Reporting System for Fixed Military Medical and Dental Treatment Facilities Manual; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To consolidate all of the human resources functions and permit ready access to manpower, personnel readiness, labor cost assignment, and education and training information across the DoD medical enterprise. This system of records provides a single database source of instant query/access for all personnel types and the readiness posture of all DoD medical personnel.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with: “Systems are maintained in a controlled area accessible only to authorized personnel with a valid requirement and authorization to enter. Physical entry is restricted by the use of locks, passwords which are changed periodically, and administrative procedures.

    Users must have a CAC and an active user account in DMHRSi in order to access records created or maintained within the system. Access to personal information is restricted to those who require the data in the performance of their official duties. All personnel whose official duties require access to the information are trained in the proper safeguarding and use of the information.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Chief/Deputy Program Manager, Resources Division, Solutions Delivery Division, Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.

    Written requests should contain the individual's full name, home address, home phone number, and SSN/DoD ID number, the identifier of this system of records notice, and signature.

    If requesting information about a legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the legal guardian or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, FOIA Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.

    Written requests for information should include the individual's full name, home address, home phone number, and SSN/DoD ID number, the identifier of this system of records notice, and signature.

    If requesting information about a legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the legal guardian or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before any records will be provided.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “DoD pay and personnel systems, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS), DoD medical facilities personnel, DoD supervisors, and DoD operational records.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-05820 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0139] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019 AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0139. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-105, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Kashka Kubzdela at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2017-2019.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-NEW (previously 1850-0790).

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 865,522.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 420,684.

    Abstract: This information collection is a revision to information collection 1850-0790; however, the Department is requesting a new OMB control number in place of the old number. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), is a federally authorized survey of student achievement at grades 4, 8, and 12 in various subject areas, such as mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, technology and engineering literacy (TEL), and the arts. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (Pub. L. 107-279 title III, section 303) requires the assessment to collect data on specified student groups and characteristics, including information organized by race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, disability, and limited English proficiency. It requires fair and accurate presentation of achievement data and permits the collection of background, noncognitive, or descriptive information that is related to academic achievement and aids in fair reporting of results. The intent of the law is to provide representative sample data on student achievement for the nation, the states, and subpopulations of students and to monitor progress over time. The nature of NAEP is that burden alternates from a relatively low burden in national-level administration years to a substantial burden increase in state-level administration years when the sample has to allow for estimates for individual states and some of the large urban districts. This submission requests OMB's approval for main NAEP assessments in 2017, 2018, and 2019, including operational, pilot, and special studies. The NAEP results will be reported to the public through the Nation's Report Card as well as other online NAEP tools. Please note that all of the documents in this information collection have been updated since the 60 day public comment period.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05840 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC15-7-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-915); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a 60-day notice (80 FR 28264, 5/18/2015) and a 30-day notice (80 FR 52469, 8/28/2015) in the Federal Register requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-915 in response to its previous notices. The Commission is issuing this notice to clarify the burden and cost (not related to burden) for the FERC-915 information collection. The Commission is requesting comment on these clarifications.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by March 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0250 or collection number (FERC-915), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-0710.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC15-7-000, by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-915, Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0250.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-915 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission has the regulatory responsibility under section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that wholesale sales of electricity are just and reasonable and provided in a non-discriminatory manner. The Commission uses the information maintained by the respondents under FERC-915 to monitor the entities' sales, ensure that the prices are just and reasonable, maintain the integrity of the wholesale jurisdictional sales markets, and ensure that the entities comply with the requirements of the FPA and any orders authorizing market-based rate sales. FERC-915 information collection requirements are contained in 18 Code of Federal Regulations part 35.41(d). The purpose of this notice is to clarify the burden and cost (not related to burden). Commission staff discovered that burden in the 60 and 30-day notices was incorrectly presented. Specifically, labor costs (for 1,955 burden hours) associated with electronic record retention/storage cost ($27,370) was not included in the burden table (but was presented elsewhere in the notices). Additionally, the electronic record storage cost should be $29,814 (rather than $13,191). These clarifications are provided in the “Estimate of Annual Burden.”

    Type of Respondents: Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders.

    Estimate of Annual Burden1 : The Commission estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for this information collection as:

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-915—Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Record Retention Requirements 2 Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden & cost
  • per response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Electric Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority (paper storage) 3 1,955 1 1,955 1 hr.; $30.66 1,955 hrs.; $59,940 $30.66 Electric Utilities with Market-Based Rate Authority (electronic storage) 4 1,955 5 1 1,955 0.5 hr.; $14 6 977.5 hrs.; $27,370 $14 Total 7 1,955 2,932.5 hrs.; $87,310

    Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents:

    2 Each of these entities' records consist of 50% paper and 50% electronic records.

    3 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $30.66 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm). The occupation title is “file clerk” and the occupation code is 43-4071. 69.4 percent of this cost is hourly wages. The rest of the cost is benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm).

    4 Upon further research, Commission staff discovered that both the 60-day (80 FR 28264, 5/18/2015) and 30-day (80 FR 52469, 8/28/2015) notices had accounted for electronic storage cost incorrectly. The burden table has been corrected to include labor related to electronic storage in this row. The number of responses and related burden/cost has been adjusted.

    5 Only 50% of records for each entity are stored in electronic format.

    6 The Commission bases the $28/hour figure on a FERC staff study that included estimating public utility recordkeeping costs.

    7 The total number of responses will be 1,955 due to the Commisson's assumption that each entity has records in both paper and electronic storage.. The burden for each category of storage is separated by row in this burden table.

    • Record retention/storage cost for paper records (using an estimate of 48,891 cubic feet): $315,792 8

    8 The Commission bases this figure on industry archival storage costs.

    • Electronic record storage cost: 1,955 respondents * $15.25/year 9 = $29,814

    9 The Commission bases the estimated $15.25/year for each entity on the estimated cost to service and to store 1 GB of data (based on the aggregated cost of an IBM advanced data protection server).

    Total non-labor costs: $345,606 ($315,792 + $29,814 = $345,606)

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05773 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-644-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Response of Entergy Arkansas Inc. to February 26, 2016 Deficiency Letter.

    Filed Date: 3/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160308-5260.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-806-001.

    Applicants: Nassau Energy, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to MBR Application & Request for Shortened Comment Period to be effective 3/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160308-5205.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1100-000.

    Applicants: Cambria CoGen Company.

    Description: Request for Limited Temporary Waiver of Cambria Cogen Company.

    Filed Date: 3/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160307-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1103-000.

    Applicants: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Request for Limited Temporary Waiver of East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/7/16.

    Accession Number: 20160307-5255.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1116-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. for Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement Between ALLETE, Inc. and Great River Energy.

    Filed Date: 3/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160308-5259.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1117-000.

    Applicants: Flanders Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of cancellation of market based rate tariff of Flanders Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160308-5263.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1119-000.

    Applicants: Castlebridge Energy Group LLC.

    Description: Castlebridge Energy Group, LLC submits notification of cancellation of its market based rate tariff.

    Filed Date: 3/8/16.

    Accession Number: 20160309-0001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1120-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-03-09_Attachment X External NRIS Filing to be effective 3/10/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160309-5066.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1123-000.

    Applicants: Shelby County Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession to Reactive Tariff to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/9/16.

    Accession Number: 20160309-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05771 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14751-000] Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    b. Project No.: 14751-000.

    c. Date Filed: January 28, 2016.

    d. Submitted By: Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Fresno Dam Site Water Power Project.

    f. Location: On the Milk River in Hill County, Montana near the town of Kremlin at the existing Bureau of Reclamation Fresno Dam.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.

    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Justin D. Ahmann, Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC, 111 Legend Trail, Kalispell, MT 59901.

    i. FERC Contact: Ryan Hansen at (202) 502-8074; or email at [email protected]

    j. Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on February 2, 2016. Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC provided public notice of its request on February 8, 2016. In a letter dated March 9, 2016, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.

    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Montana State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.

    l. Alpine Pacific Utilities, LLC filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.

    m. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.

    n. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05774 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RD16-2-000] Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) invites public comment in Docket No. RD16-2-000 on a proposed change to collections of information FERC-725P (OMB Control No. 1902-0269) and FERC-725P1 (OMB Control No. 1902-0280) that the Commission is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 230, January 5, 2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments and is making this notation in the submittals to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding the proposed information collections must be received on or before April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos. 1902-0269 (FERC-725P) and 1902-0280 (FERC-725P1), should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at: [email protected], Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-0710.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. RD16-2-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Titles: FERC-725P (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability Standard PRC-005-3) and FERC-725P1 (Mandatory Reliability Standards: PRC-005 Reliability Standard)

    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0269 (FERC-725P) and 1902-0280 (FERC-725P1)

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725P1 information collection requirements with the stated changes to the current reporting and record retention requirements, and elimination of the requirements of FERC-725P.

    Abstract: Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 (Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance) replaces or supplements requirements from previous versions of the PRC-005 Reliability Standard, which are approved under FERC-725P and FERC-725P1. The requirements and associated burden of Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 will be included in FERC-725P1.1

    1 In the future, to consolidate reporting requirements associated with the PRC Standards, the Commission plans to transfer the burden associated with Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 to FERC-725G (OMB Control No. 1902-0252) and to remove it from FERC-725P1. Note that, if approved by OMB, the FERC-725P (a temporary collection number) will have a 0 burden and will be eliminated by this action and the changes in Docket No. RD16-2.

    The Commission requires the information collected by the FERC-725P1 to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).2 On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted into law the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII, Subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).3 EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, which required a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability Standards.4

    2 16 U.S.C. 824o (2012).

    3 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o).

    4 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672, implementing section 215 of the FPA.5 Pursuant to Order No. 672, the Commission certified one organization, North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO.6 The Reliability Standards developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System as set forth in each Reliability Standard. On November 13, 2015, NERC filed a petition for Commission approval of proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 (Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance). NERC also requested approval of the proposed implementation plan for PRC-005-6, and the retirement of previous versions of Reliability Standard PRC-005.

    5Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).

    6North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), order on compliance, 118 FERC ¶ 61,190, order on reh'g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    NERC explained in its petition that Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 represents an improvement upon the most recently-approved version of the standard, PRC-005-4.7 FERC approved the proposed Reliability Standard PRC-005-6 on December 18, 2015.8

    7 As noted in NERC's petition, NERC filed a separate motion to delay implementation of the approved, but not yet effective, versions of the PRC-005 Reliability Standard in Docket Nos. RM14-8-000 (PRC-005-3), RD15-3-000 (PRC-005-3(i)), and RM15-9-000 (PRC-005-4) until after the Commission issues an order or rule regarding proposed PRC-005-6. NERC's motion was granted in a delegated letter order issued December 4, 2015. See North American Elec. Reliability Corp., Docket Nos. RM14-8-000 et al. (Dec. 4, 2015) (delegated letter order).

    8 The Delegated Letter Order is available in FERC's eLibrary at http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=14076238.

    Type of Respondents: Transmission Owners (TO), Generator Owners (GO), and Distribution Providers (DP).

    Estimate of Annual Burden:9 Estimates for the changes to burden and cost due to Docket No. RD16-2-000 follow.

    9 The Commission defines “burden” as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. For further information, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.

    Changes Made in RD16-2-000 Requirements in reliability standard Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden and cost per
  • response
  • Total annual burden (hours) and cost Total annual cost per
  • respondent
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) ($) FERC-725P (Reduction due to Replacement of PRC-005-3)1011 One-time review of existing plant and substation sites to determine which ones fall under PRC-005-3 [reduction] 12 937 −1 −937 2 hrs.; $146 −1,874 hrs.; −$136,802 −146 One-time review and adjustment of existing program [reduction] 13 288 −1 −288 8 hrs.; $584 −2,304 hrs.; −$168,192 −584 Total Net Decrease to FERC-725P −1,225 −4,178 hrs.; −$304,994 FERC-725P1 Replacement of PRC-005-4 14 15—One-time review of sudden pressure relay maintenance program and adjustment (Burden Reduction) 1,287 −1 −1,287 8 hrs.; $522.72 −10,296 hrs.; −$672,740.64 −522.72 Implementation of PRC-005-6—One-time review of existing plant and substation sites to determine which ones fall under PRC-005-6 16 (Burden Increase) 17 937 1 937 2 hrs.; $145 1,874 hrs.; $135,396.50 144.50 Implementation of PRC-005-6—One-time review and adjustment of existing program for reclosing relays and associated equipment 18 (Burden Increase) 288 1 288 8.5 hrs.; $614 2,448 hrs.; $176,868 614 Implementation of PRC-005-6—One-time review and adjustment of existing program for sudden pressure relays 19 (Burden Increase) 1,287 1 1,287 8 hrs.; $531.60 10,296 hrs.; $684,169.20 531.60 Total Net Increase to FERC-725P1 +1,225 4,322 hrs.; $323,693.06 Total Net Change, due to RD16-2 0 144 hrs.; $18,699.06

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    10 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $73 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the average of the salary plus benefits for a manager and an engineer (rounded to the nearest dollar). The figures are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] at (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm).

    11 Implemented in Docket No. RM14-8.

    12 This figure reflects the generator owners and transmission owners identified in the NERC Compliance Registry as of May 28, 2014.

    13 This figure is a subset of GOs and TOs, as discussed in Order 803 (Docket No. RM14-8), P 41.

    14 Implemented in Docket No. RM15-9.

    15 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $65.34 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from the average of the wages plus benefits for an engineer (rounded to the nearest dollar). The figures are based on information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm).

    16 The average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) is estimated to be $72.25 (and is based on BLS May 2014 Data, updated 8/2015). It is based on the average of the hourly wages plus benefits of:

    • Management (occupation code 11-0000, $78.04 per hour) and

    • electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071, $66.45 per hour).

    17 This figure reflects the generator owners and transmission owners identified in the NERC Compliance Registry as of May 28, 2014.

    18 The average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) is estimated to be $72.25 (and is based on BLS May 2014 Data, updated 8/2015). It is based on the average of the hourly wages plus benefits of:

    • Management (occupation code 11-0000, $78.04 per hour) and

    • electrical engineer (occupation code 17-2071, $66.45 per hour).

    19 The average hourly cost (wages plus benefits) is estimated to be $66.45, based on BLS estimates for an electrical engineer.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05775 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

    AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    March 17, 2016, 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    STATUS:

    OPEN.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Agenda, *NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400. For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.

    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    1025th—Meeting, Regular Meeting, March 17, 2016, 10:00 a.m. Item No. Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD16-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD16-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD06-3-000 2015 State of the Markets. A-4 AD15-12-000 Transmission Investment Metrics. ELECTRIC E-1 RM16-8-000 Requirements for Frequency and Voltage Ride Through Capability of Small Generating Facilities. E-2 RM15-8-000 Relay Performance During Stable Power Swings Reliability Standard. E-3 ER16-139-000, ER16-139-001 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-4 ER16-636-000 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-5 OMITTED. E-6 ER12-1574-000 Kentucky Utilities Company E-7 ER16-445-000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company E-8 ER15-572-001, ER15-572-004 New York Independent System Operator, Inc. E-9 ER14-1640-000 Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. ER14-1641-000 Entergy Louisiana, LLC. ER14-1642-000 Entergy Mississippi, Inc. ER14-1643-000 Entergy New Orleans, Inc. ER14-1644-000 (consolidated) Entergy Texas, Inc. E-10 ER13-685-000, ER13-685-001, ER13-687-000, ER13-690-000 Public Service Company of New Mexico. E-11 ER15-234-000, ER15-689-000, ER15-689-001 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. E-12 ER15-1825-001 California Independent System Operator Corporation. E-13 OMITTED. E-14 OMITTED. E-15 ER14-2866-003, ER14-2866-004 Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company. E-16 OMITTED. E-17 EL15-75-000 The City of Alexandria, Louisiana. E-18 EL16-1-000 Heartland Consumers Power District. E-19 EL05-55-003 City of Holland, Michigan v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. EL05-63-005 DTE Energy Trading, Inc. v. Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-20 EL15-84-001 Caithness Long Island II, LLC v. New York Independent System Operator, Inc. E-21 ER15-266-000, ER15-266-001 Public Service Company of Colorado. E-22 EL15-55-001 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. E-23 EL15-86-000 ITC Grid Development, LLC. E-24 EL16-9-000 Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC, Wolf Hills Energy, LLC, Crete Energy Venture, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C. v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. E-25 ER11-2814-001, ER11-2815-001, ER11-2814-002, ER11-2814-004, ER11-2815-002, ER11-2815-003, ER11-2815-004, ER11-2815-006 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ER11-3279-001, ER11-3279-002, ER11-3279-003 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. GAS G-1 RM96-1-039 Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines. G-2 RP06-569-008, RP07-376-005, (consolidated) Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. G-3 RP16-314-000 Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC. HYDRO H-1 P-10200-014 Congdon Pond Hydro, LLC. H-2 P-10489-015 City of River Falls, Wisconsin. H-3 P-2660-027 Woodland Pulp LLC. H-4 P-14648-001 Owyhee Hydro, LLC. CERTIFICATES C-1 CP13-91-001, CP13-92-001, CP13-93-001 Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP. C-2 OMITTED. C-3 CP15-505-000 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC. C-4 CP16-70-000 Impulsora Pipeline, LLC. Issued: March 10, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.

    [FR Doc. 2016-05869 Filed 3-11-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-138-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project

    On March 31, 2015, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) a subsidiary of Williams Partners L.P. (Williams), filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) in Docket No. CP15-138-000 requesting authorization pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Commission's regulations to construct, operate, and maintain expansions of its existing interstate natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The proposed project, referred to as the Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project (Project), would provide 1,700,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas transportation service from various receipt points in Pennsylvania to various delivery points along Transco's existing interstate pipeline system.

    FERC issued its Notice of Application for the Project on April 8, 2015. Among other things, the notice alerted other agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project. This notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS October 21, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline January 19, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The Project includes about 197.7 miles of pipeline composed of the following facilities:

    • 183.7 miles of new 30- and 42-inch-diameter greenfield 1 natural gas pipeline;

    1 A “greenfield” pipeline crosses land previously untouched by natural gas infrastructure rather than using existing rights-of-way.

    • 11.5 miles of new 36- and 42-inch-diamater pipeline looping; 2

    2 “Looping” is the practice of installing a pipeline in parallel to another pipeline to increase the capacity along an existing stretch of right-of-way, often beyond what can be achieved by one pipeline or pipeline expansion.

    • 2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter replacements; and

    • associated equipment and facilities.

    The Project's aboveground facilities consist of two new compressor stations; additional compression and related modifications to three existing compressor stations; two new meter stations and three new regulator stations; and minor modifications at existing aboveground facilities at various locations to allow for bi-directional flow and the installation of supplemental odorization, odor detection, and/or odor masking/deodorization equipment.

    Background

    On April 4, 2014, the Commission staff granted Transco's request to use the FERC's pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the Project Docket No. PF14-8-000. On July 18, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Atlantic Sunrise Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was sent to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during scoping include potential impacts on forested areas, groundwater, and threatened and endangered species; socioeconomic impacts; land use and recreational impacts; air quality; safety; potential cumulative impacts; and potential alternative routes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS.

    Additional information about the Project may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Project Manager, Joanne Wachholder, by telephone at (202) 502-8056 or by electronic mail at [email protected]

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05772 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9943-71-OAR] Request for Nominations for the Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Request for nominations for the mobile sources technical review subcommittee.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to its Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS). Vacancies are anticipated to be filled by Spring, 2017. Sources in addition to this Federal Register document may also be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be postmarked or emailed by April 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit nominations to: Courtney McCubbin, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (6406A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also email nominations with subject line MSTRS2016 to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Courtney McCubbin, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; telephone: (202) 564-2436; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The MSTRS is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. The MSTRS provides the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) with independent advice, counsel and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of programs related to mobile source air pollution and its control.

    Through its expert members from diverse stakeholder groups and from its various workgroups, the subcommittee reviews and addresses a wide range of developments, issues and research areas such as emissions modeling, emission standards and standard setting, air toxics, innovative and incentive-based transportation policies, onboard diagnostics, heavy-duty engines, diesel retrofit, fuel quality and greenhouse gases. The Subcommittee's Web site is at: http://www.epa.gov/caaac/mobile-sources-technical-review-subcommittee-mstrs-caaac.

    Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for three year terms with the possibility of reappointment to a second term. The MSTRS usually meets two times annually and the average workload for the members is approximately 5 to 10 hours per month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business for members who qualify.

    EPA is seeking nominations from representatives of nonfederal interests such as:

    • Future transportation options and shared mobility interests

    • Mobile source emission modeling interests

    • Transportation and supply chain shippers

    • Marine and inland port interests

    • Environmental advocacy groups

    • Community and/or environmental justice interests

    • State and local government interests

    EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    In selecting members, we will consider technical expertise, coverage of broad stakeholder perspectives, diversity and the needs of the subcommittee.

    The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:

    • The background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational, and other considerations);

    • Experience working with future transportation options and shared mobility;

    • Experience working with the modeling of mobile source emissions;

    • Experience working with producers of passenger cars, engines and trucks, engine and equipment manufacturing;

    • Experience working with fuel or renewable fuel producers;

    • Experience working with oil refiners, distributors and retailers of mobile source fuels;

    • Experience working with clean energy producers;

    • Experience working with agricultural producers (corn and other crop products), distillers, processors and shippers of biofuels;

    • Experience working with emission control manufacturers, catalyst and filter manufacturers;

    • Experience working for State and local environmental agencies or State Air Pollution Control Agencies;

    • Experience working for environmental advocacy groups;

    • Experience working for environmental and/or community groups;

    • Experience working with supply chain logistics and goods movement;

    • Experience working with marine port interests;

    • Experience in working at the national level on local governments issues;

    • Demonstrated experience with environmental and sustainability issues;

    • Executive management level experience with membership in broad-based networks;

    • Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication and consensus-building skills;

    • Ability to volunteer time to attend meetings two times a year, participate in teleconference and webinar meetings, attend listening sessions with the Administrator or other senior-level officials, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare reports and advice letters.

    Nominations must include a resume and a short biography describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.

    To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.

    Please be aware that EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed to three-year terms.

    Dated: March 3, 2016. Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05817 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436; FRL-9943-14] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 1139.11); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Enforceable Consent Agreements, Voluntary Testing Agreements, Voluntary Data Submissions, and Exemptions from Testing Requirements” and identified by EPA ICR No. 1139.11 and OMB Control No. 2070-0033, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Mike Mattheisen, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-3077; 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. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

    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 estimates 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.

    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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

    II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply to?

    Title: TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Enforceable Consent Agreements, Voluntary Testing Agreements, Voluntary Data Submissions, and Exemptions from Testing Requirements.

    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1139.11.

    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0033.

    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on August 31, 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

    Abstract: Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is designed to assure that chemicals that may pose serious risks to human health or the environment undergo testing by manufacturers or processors, and that the results of such testing are made available to EPA. EPA uses the information collected under the authority of TSCA section 4 to assess risks associated with the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of a chemical, and to support any necessary regulatory action with respect to that chemical.

    EPA must assure that appropriate tests are performed on a chemical if it decides: (1) That a chemical being considered under TSCA section 4(a) may pose an “unreasonable risk” or is produced in “substantial” quantities that may result in substantial or significant human exposure or substantial environmental release of the chemical; (2) that additional data are needed to determine or predict the impacts of the chemical's manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal; and (3) that testing is needed to develop such data. Rules and consent orders under TSCA section 4 require that one manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical perform the specified testing and report the results of that testing to EPA. TSCA section 4 also allows a manufacturer or processor of a subject chemical to apply for an exemption from the testing requirement if that testing will be or has been performed by another party. This information collection applies to reporting and recordkeeping activities associated with the information that EPA requires industry to provide in response to TSCA section 4 test rules, consent orders, test rule exemptions and other data submissions.

    Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 40 CFR part 790). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range between 8.5 and 243 hours per response, not including CDX registration, and 0.53 hours per CDX registration. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are manufacturers, processors, importers, users, distributors or disposers of one or more specified chemical substances.

    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 15.

    Frequency of response: On occasion.

    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 5.6.

    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,055 hours.

    Estimated total annual costs: $27,089,112. This includes an estimated burden cost of $58,917 and an estimated cost of $27,030,195 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs (namely laboratory test costs).

    III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 626,838 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease mainly reflects corrections to the previous renewal of this collection, plus reduced levels of activity in test rules, methodological corrections and updates, and requirements for electronic reporting of information. This change is both a program change (electronic reporting) and an adjustment (all other).

    IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    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 pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: March 3, 2016. James Jones, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05821 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 8, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Randolph Bancorp, Inc., Stoughton, Massachusetts; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Randolph Savings Bank, Stoughton, Massachusetts, with the conversion of Randolph Bancorp, from mutual to stock form.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05778 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to approve of and assign OMB numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB number.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR 4198 or FR 4203 by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The following information collection, which is being handled under this delegated authority, has received initial Board approval and is hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collection, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Reports

    1. Report title: Funding and Liquidity Risk Management Guidance.

    Agency form number: FR 4198.

    OMB control number: 7100-0326.

    Frequency: On occasion and monthly.

    Reporters: Bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, state-licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks (other than insured branches), and corporations organized or operating under sections 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (agreement corporations and Edge corporations).

    Estimated annual burden hours: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 20,160 hours; mid-sized institutions: 17,520 hours; small institutions: 428,080 hours. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 261,696 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 720 hours; mid-sized institutions: 240 hours; small institutions: 80 hours. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 4 hours.

    Number of respondents: Section 14 strategic planning and budgeting process: Large institutions: 28; mid-sized institutions: 73; small institutions: 5,351. Section 20 liquidity risk reporters: 5,452.

    General description of report: The Board's Legal Division has determined that this information collection is mandatory based on the following relevant statutory provisions.

    • Section 9(6) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 324) requires state member banks to make reports of condition to their supervising Reserve Bank in such form and containing such information as the Board may require.

    • Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1844(c)) authorizes the Board to require a BHC and any subsidiary to submit reports to keep the Board informed as to its financial condition, [and] systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risk.

    • Section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2) requires branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations to file reports of condition with the Federal Reserve to the same extent and in the same manner as if the branch or agency were a state member bank.

    • Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 625) requires Edge and agreement corporations to make reports to the Board at such time and in such form as it may require.

    • Section 10(b) of the Home Owners' Loan Act requires an SLHC to file reports on the operation of the SLHC and any subsidiary as the Board may require and in such form and for such periods as the Board may require.

    Because the records required by the Guidance are maintained at the institution, issues of confidentiality are not expected to arise. Should the documents be obtained by the Federal Reserve System during the course of an examination, they would be exempt from disclosure under exemption 8 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, some or all of the information may be “commercial or financial” information protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, under the standards set forth in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

    Abstract: On March 22, 2010, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) (the agencies) published a joint final notice in the Federal Register implementing guidance titled “Interagency Policy Statement on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management” (the “Guidance”), effective May 21, 2010.1

    175 FR 13656 (March 22, 2010).

    The Guidance summarizes the principles of sound liquidity risk management that the agencies have issued in the past and, where appropriate, brings them into conformance with the “Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision” issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in September 2008. While the BCBS liquidity principles primarily focuses on large internationally active financial institutions, the Guidance emphasizes supervisory expectations for all domestic financial institutions including banks, thrifts and credit unions.

    The agencies 2 have identified two sections of the Guidance that fall under the definition of an information collection. Section 14 states that institutions should consider liquidity costs, benefits, and risks in strategic planning and budgeting processes. Section 20 requires that liquidity risk reports provide aggregate information with sufficient supporting detail to enable management to assess the sensitivity of the institution to changes in market conditions, its own financial performance, and other important risk factors.

    2 As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the OTS was abolished and its functions and powers were transferred to the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4198 information collection.

    2. Report title: Recordkeeping Provisions Associated with Guidance on Leveraged Lending.

    Agency form number: FR 4203.

    OMB control number: 7100-0354.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Reporters: All institutions that originate or participate in leverage lending.

    Estimated annual burden hours: 29,422 hours.

    Estimated average hours per response: 754.4 hours.

    Number of respondents: 39.

    General description of report: The Board's Legal Division has determined that all financial institutions supervised by the Board and substantively engaged in leveraged lending activities are subject to the FR 4203:

    • Regarding state member banks, the information collection is authorized by Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 248(a)(2), which authorizes the Board to require any depository institution to make such reports of its assets and liabilities as the Board may determine to be necessary or desirable to enable the Board to discharge its responsibilities to monitor and control monetary and credit aggregates.

    • With respect to bank holding companies, Section 5(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. 1844(c), authorizes the Board to require a bank holding company and any subsidiary “to keep the Board informed as to—(i) its financial condition, [and] systems for monitoring and controlling financial and operating risks. . . .”

    • With respect to savings and loan holding companies, 12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(3), authorizes the Board to “maintain such books and records as may be prescribed by the Board.”

    • Regarding branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, Section 7(c)(2) of the International Banking Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. 3105(c)(2), subjects such entities to the requirements of section 11(a) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248(a)) “to the same extent and in the same manner as if the branch or agency were a state member bank.”

    • Under Section 25 of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 602, member banks are required to furnish to the Board “information concerning the condition of” Edge and Agreement Corporations in which they invest. More generally with respect to Edge and Agreement Corporations, under Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 611a, the Federal Reserve may “issue rules and regulations” governing such entities “consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes” of that subchapter.

    Because the information collection is called for in guidance and not in a statute or regulation, it is considered voluntary.

    Because the information collected by the Proposed Guidance is maintained at the institutions, issues of confidentiality would not normally arise. Should the information be obtained by the Board in the course of an examination, it would be exempt from disclosure under exemption 8 of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). In addition, some or all of the information may be confidential commercial or financial information protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, under the standards set forth in National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

    Abstract: The interagency guidance outlines high-level principles related to safe and sound leveraged lending activities, including underwriting considerations, assessing and documenting enterprise value, risk management expectations for credits awaiting distribution, stress testing expectations and portfolio management, and risk management expectations. This guidance applies to all financial institutions substantively engaged in leveraged lending activities supervised by the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC (the Agencies).

    The Agencies identified certain aspects of the proposed guidance that may constitute a collection of information. In particular, these aspects are the provisions that state a banking organization should (a) have underwriting policies for leveraged lending, including stress testing procedures for leveraged credits; (b) have risk management policies, including stress testing procedures for pipeline exposures; and (c) have policies and procedures for incorporating the results of leveraged credit and pipeline stress tests into the firm's overall stress testing framework.

    Although the guidance is applicable to all institutions that originate or participate in leverage lending, due to the large exposures created by these types of loans, these credits are most likely originated primarily by larger institutions.

    Current Actions: The Federal Reserve proposes to extend, without revision, the FR 4203 information collection.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05808 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 30, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. Elizabeth Ann McDonald, Austin, Texas, and Wade Compton McDonald, Plano, Texas, to join the Compton/McDonald Family Group, a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Menard Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Menard Bank, both in Menard, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 10, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05777 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket No. CDC-2016-0029] Proposed Revised Vaccine Information Materials for Polio and Varicella Vaccines AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) (42 U.S.C. 300aa-26), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) develops vaccine information materials that all health care providers are required to give to patients/parents prior to administration of specific vaccines. HHS/CDC seeks written comment on the proposed updated vaccine information statements for polio and varicella vaccines.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0029, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Written comments should be addressed to Suzanne Johnson-DeLeon, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop A-19, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Skip Wolfe ([email protected]), National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop A-19, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-660), as amended by section 708 of Public Law 103-183, added section 2126 to the Public Health Service Act. Section 2126, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300aa-26, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and disseminate vaccine information materials for distribution by all health care providers in the United States to any patient (or to the parent or legal representative in the case of a child) receiving vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

    Development and revision of the vaccine information materials, also known as Vaccine Information Statements (VIS), have been delegated by the Secretary to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Section 2126 requires that the materials be developed, or revised, after notice to the public, with a 60-day comment period, and in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, appropriate health care provider and parent organizations, and the Food and Drug Administration. The law also requires that the information contained in the materials be based on available data and information, be presented in understandable terms, and include:

    (1) A concise description of the benefits of the vaccine,

    (2) A concise description of the risks associated with the vaccine,

    (3) A statement of the availability of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and

    (4) Such other relevant information as may be determined by the Secretary.

    The vaccines initially covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program were diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and poliomyelitis vaccines. Since April 15, 1992, any health care provider in the United States who intends to administer one of these covered vaccines is required to provide copies of the relevant vaccine information materials prior to administration of any of these vaccines. Since then, the following vaccines have been added to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, requiring use of vaccine information materials for them as well: hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), varicella (chickenpox), pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus, hepatitis A, meningococcal, human papillomavirus (HPV), and seasonal influenza vaccines. Instructions for use of the vaccine information materials are found on the CDC Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html.

    HHS/CDC is proposing updated versions of the polio and varicella vaccine information statements.

    The vaccine information materials referenced in this notice are being developed in consultation with the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, the Food and Drug Administration, and parent and health care provider groups.

    We invite written comment on the proposed vaccine information materials entitled “Polio Vaccine: What You Need to Know” and “Varicella Vaccine: What You Need to Know.” Copies of the proposed vaccine information materials are available at http://www.regulations.gov (see Docket Number CDC-2016-0029). Comments submitted will be considered in finalizing these materials. When the final materials are published in the Federal Register, the notice will include an effective date for their mandatory use.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05776 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0736] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Tracking Network for PETNet, LivestockNet, and SampleNet AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we) 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 our use of a tracking network to collect and share safety information about animal food from Federal, State, and Territorial Agencies.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 16, 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-N-0736 for “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Tracking Network for PETNet, LivestockNet, and SampleNet.” 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.

    Tracking Network for PETNet, LivestockNet, and SampleNet—OMB Control Number 0910-0680—Revision

    The Center for Veterinary Medicine and the Partnership for Food Protection developed a web-based tracking network (the tracking network) to allow Federal, State, and Territorial regulatory and public health agencies to share safety information about animal food. Information is submitted to the tracking network by regulatory and public health agency employees with membership rights. The efficient exchange of safety information is necessary because it improves early identification and evaluation of a risk associated with an animal food product. We use the information to assist regulatory agencies to quickly identify and evaluate a risk and take whatever action is necessary to mitigate or eliminate exposure to the risk. The tracking network was developed under the requirements set forth under section 1002(b) of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) (Pub. L. 110-085). Section 1002(b) of FDAAA required FDA, in relevant part, to establish a pet food early warning alert system.

    Currently we receive two types of reports via the tracking network: (1) Reports of pet food related illness and product defects associated with dog food, cat food, and food for other pets, which are submitted via the Pet Event Tracking Network (PETNet); and (2) reports of animal food-related illness and product defects associated with animal food for livestock animals, aquaculture species, and horses, which are submitted via LivestockNet. We are revising the collection to include a third type of report that would be submitted via “SampleNet.” SampleNet will collect reports about animal food laboratory samples considered adulterated by State or FDA regulators. SampleNet will allow Federal, State, and Territorial regulatory and public health agencies to share laboratory data related to adulterated samples for purposes of surveillance, mitigation, work planning, and supporting the animal food standard requirements.

    PETNet and LivestockNet reports share the following common data elements, the majority of which are drop down menu choices: Product details (product name, lot code, product form, and the manufacturer or distributor/packer (if known)), the species affected, number of animals exposed to the product, number of animals affected, body systems affected, product problem/defect, date of onset or the date product problem was detected, the State where the incident occurred, the origin of the information, whether there are supporting laboratory results, and contact information for the reporting member (i.e., name, telephone number will be captured automatically when member logs in to the system). For the LivestockNet report, additional data elements specific to livestock animals will be captured: Product details (indication of whether the product is a medicated feed under 21 CFR 558.3(b)(8), product packaging, and intended purpose of the product), class of the animal species affected, and production loss. For PETNet reports, the only additional data field is the animal life stage. The proposed SampleNet reports will have the following data elements, many of which are drop down menu choices: Product information (product name, lot code, guarantor information, date and location of sample collection, and product description); laboratory information (sample identification number, the reason for testing, whether the food was reported to the Reportable Food Registry, who performed the analysis); and results information (analyte, test method, analytical results, whether the results contradict a label claim or guarantee, and whether action was taken as a result of the sample analysis).

    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the collection of information are Federal, State, and Territorial regulatory and public health agency employees with membership access to the Animal Feed Network.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    PETNet 20 5 100 0.25 (15 minutes) 25 LivestockNet 20 5 100 0.25 (15 minutes) 25 SampleNet 20 5 100 0.25 (15 minutes) 25 Total 75 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Our estimate is based on our experience with the tracking network over the past 3 years. We estimate that we will receive an average of 5 submissions from 20 respondents for each type of report, and that it will take 15 minutes (0.25 hour) per response.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05757 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management 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). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Name of Committees: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committees: To provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 5, 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: Stephanie L. Begansky, 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: [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 committees will be asked to discuss new drug application (NDA) 208653, benzhydrocodone/acetaminophen oral tablets, submitted by KemPharm, Inc., with the proposed indication of short-term (up to 14 days) management of acute pain. The product has been formulated with the intent to provide abuse-deterrent properties. Benzhydrocodone is a hydrocodone prodrug which, according to the applicant, is rapidly converted into hydrocodone by enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract. The active drugs in this fixed-dose combination are hydrocodone and acetaminophen. The applicant has submitted data to support abuse-deterrent properties for this product. The committees will be asked to discuss whether the applicant has demonstrated abuse-deterrent properties for their product that would support labeling, and whether the nasal route of abuse is relevant for combination products made up of hydrocodone and acetaminophen.

    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: On May 5, 2016, from 9:15 a.m. to 5 p.m., the meeting is open to the public. 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 April 21, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 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 April 13, 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 April 14, 2016.

    Closed Presentation of Data: On May 5, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 9:15 a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and review of trade secret and/or confidential commercial information (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)). During this session, the committees will discuss the drug development program of an investigational abuse-deterrent opioid product.

    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 Stephanie L. Begansky 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: March 9, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05748 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0819] Determination That KENALOG (Triamcinolone Acetonide) Lotion and Other Drug Products Were Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that refer to these drug products, and it will allow FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the products as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stacy Kane, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6207, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8363, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

    Under § 314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the listed drug.

    FDA has become aware that the drug products listed in the table in this document are no longer being marketed.

    Application No. Drug Name Active
  • Ingredient(s)
  • Strength(s) Dosage Form/Route Applicant
    NDA 011602 KENALOG Triamcinolone Acetonide 0.025%; 0.1% Lotion; Topical Delcor Asset Corp. NDA 016059 INDOCIN Indomethacin 25 milligrams (mg); 50 mg Capsule; Oral Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC. NDA 017560 BACTRIM and BACTRIM PEDIATRIC Sulfamethoxazole; Trimethoprim 200 mg/5 milliliters (mL); 40 mg/5 mL Suspension; Oral Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. NDA 017598 SEPTRA and SEPTRA GRAPE Sulfamethoxazole; Trimethoprim 200 mg/5 mL; 40 mg/5 mL Suspension; Oral Monarch Pharmaceuticals, Inc. NDA 018185 INDOCIN SR Indomethacin 75 mg Extended-Release Capsule; Oral Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC. NDA 018450 NITROPRESS Sodium Nitroprusside 50 mg/vial Injectable; Injection AbbVie Inc. NDA 019834 PLENDIL Felodipine 2.5 mg; 5 mg; 10 mg Extended-Release Tablet; Oral AstraZeneca. NDA 021475 METHYLIN Methylphenidate Hydrochloride 2.5 mg; 5 mg; 10 mg Chewable Tablet; Oral Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. NDA 050320 UNIPEN Nafcillin Sodium Equal to (EQ) 500 mg base/vial; EQ 1 g (gram) base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial; EQ 4 g base/vial; EQ 10 g base/vial; EQ 20 g base/vial Injectable; Injection Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals. NDA 050406 KEFLEX Cephalexin EQ 125 mg base/5 mL; EQ 250 mg base/5 mL; EQ 100 mg base/mL For Suspension; Oral Shionogi Inc. ANDA 060576 MYCOLOG-II Nystatin; Triamcinolone Acetonide 100,000 units/g; 0.1% Cream; Topical Delcor Asset Corp. ANDA 062117 CEPHALEXIN Cephalexin EQ 125 mg base/5 mL; EQ 250 mg base/5 mL; EQ 100 mg base/mL For suspension; Oral Facta Farmaceutici S.p.A. ANDA 062606 MYCOLOG-II Nystatin; Triamcinolone Acetonide 100,000 units/g; 0.1% Cream; Topical Delcor Asset Corp. ANDA 062717 UNIPEN Nafcillin Sodium EQ 500 mg base/vial; EQ 1 g base/vial; EQ 2 g base/vial Injectable; Injection Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals.

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under § 314.161, has determined that the drug products listed in this document were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug products listed in this document in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” identifies, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.

    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDAs and ANDAs listed in this document are unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the products subject to those NDAs and ANDAs. Additional ANDAs that refer to these products may also be approved by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for these drug products should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05717 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2014-D-1814] Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services To Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry.” The draft guidance document provides blood collection establishments and transfusion services with recommendations to control the risk of bacterial contamination of room temperature stored platelets intended for transfusion through the implementation of pathogen reduction technology (PRT) or bacterial testing. The draft guidance also provides recommendations for the use of secondary testing of platelets as the basis to extend the dating period of platelets, when appropriately labeled bacterial detection devices and storage containers are used. The draft guidance replaces the draft guidance entitled “Bacterial Detection Testing by Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion,” dated December 2014. The draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to supersede the recommendation in section VII.A.2, in regard to bacterial contamination testing in the document entitled “Guidance for Industry and FDA Review Staff: Collection of Platelets by Automated Methods” dated December 2007.

    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 on 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 June 13, 2016. Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 16, 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-2014-D-1814 for “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry.” 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.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your requests. The draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Requirements: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    Guidance Document: Jonathan McKnight, 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. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft document entitled “Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion; Draft Guidance for Industry.” Platelets are associated with a higher risk of sepsis and are related to more fatalities than any other transfusable blood component. The risk of bacterial contamination of platelets is a leading risk of infection from blood transfusion. This risk has persisted despite numerous interventions including the introduction, in the last decade, of analytically sensitive culture-based bacterial detection methods, which are widely used to test platelets prior to their release from blood collection establishments to transfusion services.

    The draft guidance provides blood collection establishments and transfusion services with recommendations to control the risk of bacterial contamination of room temperature stored platelets intended for transfusion through the implementation of PRT or bacterial testing. PRT is performed shortly after platelet collection by blood collection establishments. Bacterial testing encompasses primary testing of platelets by blood collection establishments and subsequent secondary testing prior to transfusion primarily by transfusion services. The draft guidance also provides recommendations for the use of secondary testing of platelets as the basis to extend the dating period of platelets, when appropriately labeled bacterial detection devices and storage containers are used. Additionally, the draft guidance provides recommendations to licensed blood establishments for submitting biologics license application supplements to include bacterial testing of platelet components. The guidance informs transfusion services that are currently exempt from registration and blood product listing that if they choose to perform secondary testing of platelets to extend the dating period, they must register with FDA and list the blood products they manufacture.

    The draft guidance applies to all platelet products, including platelets manufactured from Whole Blood (Whole Blood Derived (WBD) platelets), platelets collected by automated methods from a single donor (apheresis platelets), pooled platelets, and platelets stored in additive solutions.

    The 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 bacterial risk control strategies for blood collection establishments and transfusion services to enhance the safety and availability of platelets for transfusion. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    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, 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.

    Title: Bacterial Risk Control Strategies for Blood Collection Establishments and Transfusion Services to Enhance the Safety and Availability of Platelets for Transfusion.

    Description: We have identified the following recommendations in the draft guidance document as collections of information. In section VI, the draft guidance recommends that blood collection establishments have in place measures to promptly alert the transfusion services in the event that a distributed platelet product is subsequently identified as positive for bacterial contamination. In section X.A.2, the draft guidance recommends that following secondary testing, labeling on the container label or a tie-tag, should relay the following information: (1) Type of bacterial detection test performed (rapid or culture) and (2) the date and time the bacterial detection test was performed.

    Description of Respondents: The third-party disclosure recommendations described in the draft guidance affect blood collection establishments and transfusion services that collect and manufacture platelet products for transfusion, including WBD platelets, apheresis platelets, pooled platelets, and platelets stored in additive solutions.

    Burden Estimate: The Agency believes the information collection provision for blood collection establishments in section VI does not create a new burden for respondents and is part of usual and customary business practice. Blood collection establishments currently have in place standard operating procedures for notifying consignees (transfusion services) if a distributed platelet product has subsequently tested positive for bacterial contamination.

    In section X.A.2, the draft guidance recommends that following secondary testing, establishments should maintain a labeling process that relays certain information and is integral to the container (e.g., on the container label or an attached tie-tag) and label accordingly. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average burden
  • per disclosure
  • Total hours
    Section X.A.2: Following secondary testing, maintain a labeling process that relays certain information and is integral to the container (e.g., on the container label or an attached tie-tag) and label accordingly 2480 403 1,000,000 .05 (3 minutes) 50,000 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Table 1 provides an estimate of the annual third-party disclosure burden for the information to be submitted in accordance with the draft guidance. Based on FDA data and information submitted by industry, FDA believes that there are approximately 2 million platelet transfusions per year. The recommendation for labeling following secondary testing applies to approximately 4,960 transfusion services in the Unites States. We estimate that about 50 percent of all platelets will be pathogen-reduced and 50 percent will be cultured. Therefore, to estimate the annual third-party disclosure burden in table 1, we assume that approximately one-half of the transfusion services will label one-half of the total platelets intended for transfusion in the United States following secondary testing. The average burden disclosure for transfusion services to implement the recommendation in table 1 is based on FDA's experience and industry information.

    This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR 601.12 and 610.60 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR 606.65, 606.100, 606.120, 606.121, 606.122, and have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0116; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 607 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0052.

    To ensure that comments on information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see ADDRESSES). All comments should be identified with the title of the information collection.

    In compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3407(d)), the Agency has submitted the information collection provisions of this document to OMB for review. These requirements will not be effective until FDA obtains OMB approval. FDA will publish a notice concerning OMB approval of these requirements in the Federal Register.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05718 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3815] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Electronic Submission of Medical Device Registration and Listing AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0625. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    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:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Electronic Submission of Medical Device Registration and Listing—21 CFR Part 807, Subparts A Through D; OMB Control Number 0910-0625—Extension

    Under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360) and part 807, subparts A through D (21 CFR part 807, subparts A through D), medical device establishment owners and operators are required to electronically submit establishment registration and device listing information.

    Complete and accurate registration and listing information is necessary to accomplish a number of statutory and regulatory objectives, such as: (1) Identification of establishments producing marketed medical devices, (2) identification of establishments producing a specific device when that device is in short supply or is needed for national emergency, (3) facilitation of recalls for devices marketed by owners and operators of device establishments, (4) identification and cataloguing of marketed devices, (5) administering postmarketing surveillance programs for devices, (6) identification of devices marketed in violation of the law, (7) identification and control of devices imported into the country from foreign establishments, (8) and scheduling and planning inspections of registered establishments under section 704 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374).

    Respondents to this information collection are owners or operators of establishments that engage in the manufacturing, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a device or devices, who must register their establishments and submit listing information for each of their devices in commercial distribution. Notwithstanding certain exceptions, foreign device establishments that manufacture, prepare, propagate, compound, or process a device that is imported or offered for import into the United States must also comply with the registration and listing requirements. The number of respondents is based on data from the FDA Unified Registration and Listing System.

    Burden estimates are based on recent experience with the existing medical device registration and listing program, electronic system operating experience, and the economic analysis for the final rule entitled “Implementation of Device Registration and Listing Requirements Enacted in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, and Title II of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.”

    In the Federal Register of October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65779), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section FDA Form No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    807.20(a)(5) 2—Submittal of manufacturer information by initial importers 3673 8,594 1 8,594 1.75 15,040 807.20(a)(5) 3—Submittal of manufacturer information by initial importers 3673 8,594 3 25,782 .1
  • (6 minutes)
  • 2,578
    807.21(a) 3—Creation of electronic system account 3673 3,559 1 3,559 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 1,780
    807.21(b) 2—Annual request for waiver from electronic registration and listing 14 1 14 1 14 807.21(b) 3—Initial request for waiver from electronic registration and listing 4 1 4 1 4 807.22(a) 3—Initial registration and listing 3673 3,539 1 3,539 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 1,770
    807.22(b)(1) 3—Annual registration 3673 20,355 1 20,355 .75
  • (45 minutes)
  • 15,266
    807.22(b)(2) 3—Other updates of registration 3673 4,176 1 4,176 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 2,088
    807.22(b)(3) 3—Annual update of listing information 3673 19,875 1 19,875 1 19,875 807.26(e) 3—Labeling and advertisement submitted at FDA request 71 1 71 1 71 807.34(a) 2—Initial registration and listing when electronic filing waiver granted 14 1 14 1 14 807.34(a) 3—Annual registration and listing when electronic filing waiver granted 4 1 4 1 4 807.40(b)(2) 3—Annual update of U.S. agent information 3673 1,615 1 1,615 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 808
    807.40(b)(3) 3—U.S. agent responses to FDA requests for information 3673 1,535 1 1,535 .25
  • (15 minutes)
  • 384
    807.41(a) 3—Identification of initial importers by foreign establishments 3673 10,329 1 10,329 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 5,165
    807.41(b) 3—Identification of other parties that facilitate import by foreign establishments 3673 10,329 1 10,329 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 5,165
    Total one-time burden 15,068 Total recurring burden 54,958 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 One-time burden. 3 Recurring burden.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    807.25(d) 2—List of officers, directors and partners 23,806 1 23,806 .25
  • (30 minutes)
  • 5,952
    807.26 2—Labeling and advertisements available for review 11,746 4 46,984 .5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 23,492
    Total 29,444 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Recurring burden.
    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05744 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0520] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed 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 extending Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval on the existing recordkeeping requirements for this information collection, regarding animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 16, 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-0520 for “Substances Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed.” 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 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.

    Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed—21 CFR 589.2000(e)(1)(iv) OMB Control Number 0910-0339—Extension

    This information collection was established because epidemiological evidence gathered in the United Kingdom suggested that bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a progressively degenerative central nervous system disease, is spread to ruminant animals by feeding protein derived from ruminants infected with BSE. This regulation places general requirements on persons that manufacture, blend, process, and distribute products that contain, or may contain, protein derived from mammalian tissue, and feeds made from such products.

    Specifically, this regulation requires renderers, feed manufacturers, and others involved in feed and feed ingredient manufacturing and distribution to maintain written procedures specifying the cleanout procedures or other means, and specifying the procedures for separating products that contain or may contain protein derived from mammalian tissue from all other protein products from the time of receipt until the time of shipment. These written procedures are intended to help the firm formalize their processes, and then to help inspection personnel confirm that the firm is operating in compliance with the regulation. Inspection personnel will evaluate the written procedure and confirm it is being followed when they are conducting an inspection.

    These written procedures must be maintained as long as the facility is operating in a manner that necessitates the record, and if the facility makes changes to an applicable procedure or process the record must be updated. Written procedures required by this section shall be made available for inspection and copying by FDA.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden 1 21 CFR section; activity Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours
    589.2000(e)(1)(iv); written procedures 320 1 320 14 4480 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimate of the number of recordkeepers on inspectional data, which reflect a decline in the number of recordkeepers. We attribute this decline to a reduction in the number of firms handling animal protein for use in animal feed.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05716 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0781] Final Results of Study of Workload Volume and Full Costs Associated With Review of Biosimilar Biological Product Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the final results of a study of the workload volume and full costs associated with the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications (final report). This study was conducted by an independent consulting firm, and it fulfills FDA's statutory requirement under the first authorization of the Biosimilar User Fee Act of 2012 (BsUFA), which enables FDA to collect user fees for the review of biosimilar biological applications for fiscal years 2013 to 2017. This notice solicits comments on the final report.

    DATES:

    The report will be released on or before March 17, 2016. Submit either electronic or written comments on the final report by April 14, 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-N-0781 for “Final Results of the Study of Workload Volume and Full Costs Associated With Review of Biosimilar Biological Product Applications.” 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:

    Mark Ascione, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7652, FAX: 301-847-8443.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148) amended the Public Health Service Act to create an abbreviated licensure pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “biosimilar” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-licensed biological product. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by BsUFA (Title IV of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, Pub. L. 112-114), authorizes FDA to assess and collect fees for biosimilar biological products from October 2012 through September 2017. FDA uses these fees to expedite the review process for biosimilar biological products. Biosimilar biological products represent an important public health benefit, with the potential to offer life-saving or life-altering benefits at reduced cost to the patient. BsUFA facilitates the development of safe and effective biosimilar products for the American public.

    As part of BsUFA, FDA is required to contract with an independent accounting or consulting firm to study the workload volume and full costs associated with the process for the review of biosimilar biological product applications. This notice solicits comments on the final report. The final report is described in section 744I(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-53(d)) (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:U.S.C.-prelim-title21-section379j-53&num=0&edition=prelim), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act enacted in 2012 (http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ144/pdf/PLAW-112publ144.pdf). (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.)

    II. Electronic Access

    The final report can be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/BiosimilarUserFeeActBsUFA/ucm459682.htm.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05720 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the Information Collection Request Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Maternal and Child Health Bureau Performance Measures for Discretionary Grants

    OMB No.: 0915-0298—Revision

    Abstract: The Maternal and Child Health Bureau's (MCHB) Discretionary Grant Information System (DGIS) electronically captures performance measure, program, financial, and abstract data, and products and publications about these discretionary grants from the grantees. The data collected are used by MCHB project officers to monitor and assess grantee performance as well as assist in monitoring and evaluating MCHB's programs.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) proposes to continue using reporting requirements for grant programs administered by MCHB, including national performance measures as previously approved by OMB, and in accordance with the “Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993” (Pub. L. 103-62). This Act requires the establishment of measurable goals for Federal Programs that can be reported as part of the budgetary process, thus linking funding decisions with performance. Performance measures for MCHB discretionary grants were initially approved in January 2003. Approval from OMB is being sought to continue the use of performance measures for these grants. The revised performance measures are categorized by population domains (Adolescent Health, Child Health, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Lifecourse/Crosscutting, Maternal/Women Health, and Perinatal/Infant Health) consistent with Title V, with the addition of a Capacity Building domain, specific to DGIS. There are also program-specific measures included for a subset of discretionary grant programs including the Healthy Start program, Emergency Medical Services for Children program, and programs within the Division of MCH Workforce Development. Grant programs will be assigned measures in the domains that are appropriate for their activities. Comments were received related to structure, content, and volume of performance measures during the 60-day public comment period and those comments were taken into consideration in the final revision of the DGIS performance measures and overall DGIS data collection.

    MCHB's purpose in revising the performance measures is to better measure progress toward program goals. These program goals include alignment with and support of the Title V Block Grant, specifically population domains and National Performance Measures, where reasonable. Further, the revised measures will more accurately capture the scope of services provided through this grant funding. The overall number of performance measures has been reduced from prior DGIS data collection, and the average number of performance measures each grantee will be required to report is reduced as well. Further, the structure of the data collection has been revised to better measure the various models of programs and the services each funded program provides. This revision will allow a more accurate and detailed picture of the full scope of services provided through grant programs administered by MCHB. The data collected are also used by MCHB project officers to monitor and assess grantee performance as well as assist in monitoring and evaluating MCHB's programs.

    Likely Respondents: Discretionary grant programs administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Grant Report 600 1 600 36 21,600 Total 600 1 600 36 21,600
    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05730 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: HHS-OS-0945-0004 60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR is for extending the use of the approved information collection assigned OMB control number 0945-0004, which expires on May 31, 2016. Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-6162.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 690-6162.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier HHS-OS-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Health Insurance Reform Security Standards—Final Rule.

    The final rule was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 8334) as CMS-0049-F published on February 20, 2003. On May 22, 2013, CMS 0938-0949 was transferred to OCR 0945-0004.

    Abstract: Office of Civil Rights, OCR requests approval to extend this collection without change while OMB reviews our request to incorporate the burdens of compliance with the Security Rule into another existing ICR (OMB #0945-0003, for the HIPAA Privacy Rule and Supporting Regulations), which is being revised to better reflect our experience in administering and enforcing the HIPAA Rules. This ICR extends the existing approved information collection for applicable compliance activities associated with the HIPAA Security Rule. When the revised ICR with OMB #0945-0003 is approved, we will request that this ICR (OMB# 0945-0004) be discontinued.

    Likely Respondents: HIPAA covered entities and their business associates.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Response type Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    45 CFR 164.306 Justification 75,000 3 15/60 56,250 45 CFR 164.308 Security incident report 50 1 8 400 45 CFR 164.308 Contingency plan 60,000 1 8 480,000 45 CFR 164.310 Physical safeguard policies and procedures 500 1 10/60 83 45 CFR 164.314 Problem reports 10 1 1 10 Total 536,743

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Darius Taylor, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05806 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4153-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Inspector General [OIG-1206-N] Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority AGENCY:

    Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice replaces all language in Part A (Office of the Secretary) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG) (70 FR 20147, as amended April 18, 2005; as last amended at 73 FR 7568, dated February 8, 2008).

    The statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority conforms to and carries out the statutory requirements for operating OIG. The organizational changes reflected in this notice are primarily to realign the functions within OIG to better reflect the current work environment and priorities, and to more clearly delineate responsibilities for the various activities within OIG's offices. In addition, this notice removes all of Chapter A and establishes Chapter Q.

    OIG was established by law as an independent and objective oversight unit of the Department to carry out the mission of preventing fraud and abuse and promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness of HHS programs and operations. In furtherance of this mission, the organization:

    A. Conducts and supervises audits, investigations, evaluations and inspections relating to HHS programs and operations.

    B. Identifies systemic weaknesses giving rise to opportunities for fraud and abuse in HHS programs and operations and makes recommendations to prevent their recurrence.

    C. Leads and coordinates activities to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in HHS programs and operations.

    D. Detects wrongdoers and abusers of HHS programs and beneficiaries so appropriate remedies may be brought to bear, including imposing administrative sanctions against providers of health care under Medicare and Medicaid who commit certain prohibited acts.

    E. Keeps the Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies in the administration of HHS programs and operations and about the need for and progress of corrective action.

    In addition, OIG works with the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the Secretary, to operate the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program. In accordance with authority enacted in its annual appropriations, OIG also provides protection services to the Secretary and conducts criminal investigations of violations of Federal child support provisions.

    In support of its mission, OIG carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system and a peer review system with other Offices of Inspectors General, including periodic quality assessment studies and quality control reviews, to provide reasonable assurance that applicable laws, regulations, policies, procedures, standards, and other requirements are followed, are effective, and are functioning as intended in OIG operations.

    Section Q, Office of Inspector General—Organization

    There is at the head of OIG a statutory Inspector General, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This office consists of six organizational units:

    A. Immediate Office of the Inspector General (QA) B. Office of Management and Policy (QC) C. Office of Evaluation and Inspections (QE) D. Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (QG) E. Office of Audit Services (QH) F. Office of Investigations (QJ) Section Q, Office of Inspector General—Functions

    The component sections that follow describe the specific functions of the organization.

    Section Q.00, Immediate Office of the Inspector General—Mission

    The Immediate Office of the Inspector General is directly responsible for meeting the statutory mission of OIG as a whole and for promoting effective OIG internal quality assurance systems, including quality assessment studies and quality control reviews of OIG processes and products. The office also plans, conducts and participates in a variety of interagency cooperative projects and undertakings relating to fraud and abuse with the DOJ, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and other governmental agencies, and is responsible for the reporting and legislative and regulatory review functions required by the Inspector General Act.

    Section QA.10, Immediate Office of the Inspector General—Organization

    The Immediate Office is comprised of the Inspector General, the Principal Deputy Inspector General, Chief of Staff, several technical advisors, including the Chief Medical Officer, and staff.

    Section QA.20, Immediate Office of the Inspector General—Functions

    The Inspector General is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and reports to and is under the general supervision of the Secretary or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the Deputy Secretary, but does not report to and is not subject to supervision by any other officer in the Department. In keeping with the independence conferred by the Inspector General Act, the Inspector General assumes and exercises, through line management, all functional authorities related to the administration and management of OIG and all mission-related authorities stated or implied in the law or delegated directly from the Secretary.

    The Inspector General provides executive leadership to the organization and exercises general supervision over the personnel and functions of its major components. The Inspector General determines the budget needs of OIG, sets OIG policies and priorities, oversees OIG operations and provides reports to the Secretary and Congress. By statute, the Inspector General exercises general personnel authority, e.g., selection, promotion, and assignment of employees, including members of the Senior Executive Service. The Inspector General delegates related authorities as appropriate. The Principal Deputy Inspector General assists the Inspector General in the management of OIG, and during the absence of the Inspector General, acts as the Inspector General. The Principal Deputy Inspector General supervises the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General, the Deputy Inspectors General, who head the major OIG components, as well as the Chief of Staff.

    Section QC.00, Office of Management and Policy—Mission

    The Office of Management and Policy (OMP) provides management, guidance, and resources in support of OIG.

    Section QC.10, Office of Management and Policy—Organization

    The office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Management and Policy, who, aided by Assistant Inspectors General, assures that OIG has the financial and administrative resources necessary to fulfill its mission. This office carries out its responsibilities through headquarters functions.

    Section QC.20, Office of Management and Policy—Functions

    The staffs within OMP are responsible for formulating and executing the budget, developing policy, managing information technology, human resources, executive resources, OIG procurement activities and OIG physical space. OMP also executes and maintains an internal quality assurance system, which includes quality control reviews of OMP processes and products to ensure that OIG policies and procedures are followed and function as intended. Additionally, the office leads OIG's congressional and regulatory functions; media and public communications; coordinates strategic planning and mandated Inspector General reporting, including Work Plans and Semi-Annual Reports to Congress; and responds to all requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Finally, the office leads and coordinates OIG's data analysis management and organizational performance management activities.

    Section QE.00, Office of Evaluation and Inspections—Mission

    The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is responsible for conducting in-depth evaluations of HHS programs, operations, and processes to identify vulnerabilities and recommend corrective action; to prevent and detect fraud and abuse; and to promote efficiency and effectiveness in HHS programs and operations. OEI conducts its work in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.

    Section QE.10, Office of Evaluation and Inspections—Organization

    This office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for OEI who, aided by Assistant Inspectors General, is responsible for carrying out OIG's responsibilities to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of HHS programs and operations. The office is comprised of headquarters and regional functions.

    Section QE.20, Office of Evaluation and Inspections—Functions

    OEI is responsible for conducting evaluations of HHS programs; conducting data and trend analysis; and recommending changes in programs, procedures, policies, regulations, and legislation. The Office develops evaluation policies, procedures, techniques and guidelines to be followed by all OEI staff in conducting evaluations. The office maintains an internal quality assurance program. OEI also oversees the activities of State Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) to ensure the MFCUs' compliance with Federal grant regulations, administrative rules, and performance standards for the purpose of certifying or recertifying the MFCUs annually.

    The office also maintains automated data and management information systems used by all OEI employees, a quality assurance/peer review program and policy and procedure manuals.

    Section QG.00, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General—Mission

    In accordance with section 3(g) of the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App. § 3(g)), the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides all legal advice to OIG and represents OIG in administrative litigation. OCIG proposes and litigates civil money penalty (CMP) and program exclusion cases within the jurisdiction of OIG. It coordinates False Claims Act matters involving HHS programs and resolves voluntary disclosure cases. OCIG develops guidance to assist providers in establishing compliance programs; monitors ongoing compliance of providers subject to integrity agreements; and promotes industry awareness through advisory opinions, fraud alerts, and special advisory bulletins.

    Section QG.10, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General—Organization

    The office is directed by the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General and aided by Assistant Inspectors General. The office carries out its responsibilities through headquarters functions.

    Section QG.20, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General—Functions

    The office provides legal advice to OIG on issues that arise in the exercise of OIG's responsibilities under the Inspector General Act of 1978. Such issues include the scope and exercise of the Inspector General's authorities and responsibilities; investigative techniques and procedures (including criminal procedure); the sufficiency and impact of legislative proposals affecting OIG and HHS; and the conduct and resolution of investigations, audits and inspections. The office evaluates the legal sufficiency of OIG findings and recommendations and develops formal legal opinions to support these findings and recommendations. The office provides legal advice on OIG internal administration and operations, including appropriations, delegations of authority, OIG regulations, personnel matters, the disclosure of information under the Freedom of Information Act, and the safeguarding of information under the Privacy Act and serves as OIG's Deputy Ethics Officer. The office is responsible for the clearance and enforcement of subpoenas issued by OIG.

    The office represents OIG in administrative litigation and related appeals. This includes representing OIG in personnel and Equal Employment Opportunity matters; and coordinating OIG's representation in Federal tort actions involving OIG employees.

    The office also determines whether to propose or implement administrative sanctions, including CMPs and assessments within the jurisdiction of OIG. The office litigates and resolves all appealed or contested exclusions from participation in Federal health care programs under the Social Security Act. In coordination with DOJ, the office represents HHS in all False Claims Act cases, including qui tam cases, and is responsible for final approval of civil False Claims Act settlements for the Department, including the resolution of the program exclusion authorities that have been delegated to OIG.

    The office, in conjunction with the Office of Investigations, coordinates resolution of all voluntary and mandatory disclosure under the OIG Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol, the contractor self-disclosure requirement and otherwise. The office develops and monitors corporate and individual integrity agreements adopted in connection with settlement agreements, conducts on-site reviews, and develops audit and investigative review standards for monitoring such integrity agreements in cooperation with other OIG components. The office resolves breaches of integrity agreements through the development of corrective action plans and through the imposition of sanctions.

    Finally, the office issues advisory opinions to the health care industry and members of the public on whether a current or proposed activity would constitute grounds for the imposition of a sanction under the anti-kickback statute, the CMP law or the program exclusion authorities. The office develops procedures for submitting and processing requests for advisory opinions and for determining the fees that will be imposed. The office solicits and responds to proposals for new regulatory safe harbors to the anti-kickback statute, modifications to existing safe harbors, and new fraud alerts. The office consults with DOJ on proposed advisory opinions and safe harbors before issuance or publication. The office provides legal advice to the components of OIG, other HHS offices and DOJ concerning matters involving the interpretation of the anti-kickback statute and other legal authorities, and assists those components or offices in analyzing the applicability of the anti-kickback statute to particular practices or activities under review.

    Section QH.00, Office of Audit Services—Mission

    The Office of Audit Services (OAS) is responsible for protecting the integrity of HHS operations and programs by conducting audits that identify and report ways to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of operations and services to beneficiaries of HHS programs, and help reduce fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. OAS conducts audits and oversees audit work performed by others. It conducts its work in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and follows applicable legal, regulatory, and administrative requirements.

    Section QH.10, Office of Audit Services—Organization

    The office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services who, aided by Assistant Inspectors General, performs the functions designated in Section 3(d)(1)A of the Inspector General Act) for the position of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing. The office is comprised of headquarters and regional functions and also includes a designated Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman, and the functions thereof, as required by law (section 3(d)(1)C of the Inspector General Act).

    Section QH.20, Office of Audit Services—Functions

    OAS establishes audit priorities; performs audits; oversees the progress of audits; coordinates on bodies of work with stakeholders; recommends changes in program policies, regulations, and legislation to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and improve programs and operations; and reports on the impact of audit work. The office develops audit policies, procedures, techniques, and guidelines to be followed by all OAS staff in conducting audits. OAS maintains an internal quality assurance program, conducts peer reviews of other OIGs and maintains automated data and management information systems used by all OAS employees. The office also provides oversight for audits of state and local governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations conducted by non-Federal auditors. The office provides education to agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation, and the rights and remedies against retaliation, for protected disclosures, as required of the Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman.

    Section QJ.00, Office of Investigations—Mission

    The Office of Investigations (OI) is granted full statutory law enforcement authority under the Homeland Security Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 107-296). OI is responsible for protecting the integrity of the programs administered and/or funded by HHS by conducting criminal, civil and administrative investigations of fraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations and employees. The office serves as OIG's liaison to the DOJ on all matters relating to investigations of HHS programs and personnel, and reports to the Attorney General when there are reasonable grounds to believe Federal criminal law has been violated. OI serves as a liaison to the CMS, State licensing boards, and other outside organizations and entities with regard to exclusion, compliance, and enforcement activities.

    Section QJ.10, Office of Investigations—Organization

    The office is directed by the Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, aided by Assistant Inspectors General, and performs the functions designated in the law (section 3(d)(1)B of the Inspector General Act) for the position of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The office is comprised of headquarters and regional functions.

    Section QJ.20, Office of Investigations—Functions

    OI conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and violations of standards of conduct within the jurisdiction of OIG. OI establishes investigative priorities, evaluates the progress of investigations, and reports findings to the Inspector General. The office develops and implements investigative techniques, programs, guidelines, and policies; manages OI's quality assurance/peer review program and conducts peer reviews of other OIGs. OI also carries out and maintains an internal quality assurance system. The system includes quality assessment studies and quality control reviews of OI processes and products to ensure that policies and procedures are followed effectively, and are functioning as intended. The office effectuates mandatory and permissive exclusions from participation in Federal health care programs under the Social Security Act; decides on all requests for reinstatement from, or waiver of, exclusions; and participates in developing standards governing the imposition of these exclusion authorities. The office also oversees OIG's suspension and debarment referral program. OI implements policies and procedures and plans, develops, implements and evaluates all levels of training for OI employees. The staff provides for the personal protection of the Secretary and other Department officials, as needed, and all emergency operations preparedness and response. OI coordinates the adoption of advanced digital forensic acquisition and examination and information security technologies to assist in the investigation, prevention and detection of fraud and abuse; maintains an automated data and management information system used by all OI employees; provides technical expertise on computer applications for investigations; and coordinates and approves investigative computer matches with other agencies.

    In addition, the office operates a toll-free hotline to permit individuals to report suspected fraud, waste and abuse within HHS programs.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05714 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4152-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Cell Biology Topics.

    Date: March 31, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Elena Smirnova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1236, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: Translational Research in Pediatric and Obstetric Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

    Date: April 6, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Elaine Sierra-Rivera, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, EMNR IRG, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6182 MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301- 435-2514, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Child Psychopathology, Emotion, Learning and Memory.

    Date: April 6, 2016.

    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Biao Tian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3089B, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-4411, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Endocrinology and Reproduction.

    Date: April 6, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Knecht, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6176, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1046, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Urologic and Urogynecologic Small Business Applications.

    Date: April 7-8, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Ryan G. Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1501, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, PAR15-360 Mycobacterial Induced Immunity in HIV-Infected and Uninfected Individuals.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Jingsheng Tuo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-8754, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Member Conflict: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Michael Eissenstat, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, BCMB IRG, Center for Scientific Review,National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4166, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1722, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Topics in Virology.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Marci Scidmore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3192, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1149, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Fellowship: Infectious Diseases and Microbiology.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Neerja Kaushik-Basu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3198, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2306, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05724 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: The next meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council (OARAC) will be devoted to presentations and discussions on “Next Steps in Microbicides and PrEP Research.” In addition, an update will be provided on the latest changes made to the HHS treatment and prevention guidelines by the OARAC Working Groups responsible for the guidelines.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, First Floor, Room 1D13, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Amelia Hall, M.A., Program Analyst, Office of AIDS Research, Office of the Director, NIH, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 2E63, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 435-4732, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the Council by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation. Information is also available on the OAR's home page: http://www.oar.nih.gov.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05729 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Clinical Neuroplasticity, Neuroscience and Neurodegeneration.

    Date: April 5, 2016.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Seetha Bhagavan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 237-9838, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Integrative Nutrition, Obesity and Diabetes.

    Date: April 6-7, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Raul Rojas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6185, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-6319, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Infectious Disease Epidemiology.

    Date: April 7, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Valerie Durrant, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3148, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-6390, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Health Disparities/Diversity in Basic Cancer Research.

    Date: April 11-12, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Juraj Bies, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Dr., Rm. 4158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1256, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05725 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Title: Long-term Consequences of HIV in the Kidney.

    Date: April 12, 2016.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05728 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 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 on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; CHAART Consortium RFA (U24 and U01).

    Date: April 27-29, 2016.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers Lane, CR 2098, Rockville, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5365 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 451-2067, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05727 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Immune Mechanisms.

    Date: March 14, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Jian Wang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4095D, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2778, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences AREA.

    Date: March 22, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Sara Ahlgren, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, RM 4136, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0904, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 9, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05726 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women (PPW) Quarterly Progress Reports—NEW

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, has developed a set of infrastructure development measures in which recipients of cooperative agreements will report on various benchmarks on a quarterly-annual basis. The infrastructure development measures are designed to collect information at the grantee-level and program-level.

    The draft infrastructure measures are based on the programmatic requirements conveyed in TI-14-005, Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women.

    The purpose of this program is to provide funding to improve treatment for low-income (according to federal poverty guidelines) women, age 18 and over, who are pregnant, postpartum (the period after childbirth up to 12 months), and their minor children, age 17 and under, who have limited access to quality health services.

    The pregnant and postpartum women program will implement parenting and treatment evidence-based practice models and a feedback loop developed to enable the grantee and the programs to identify barriers and test solutions through direct services. The expected outcomes of these grants will include decreases in the use and/or abuse of prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, illicit and other harmful drugs (e.g., inhalants) among pregnant and postpartum women; increases in safe and healthy pregnancies; improved birth outcomes; reduced perinatal and environmentally-related effects of maternal and/or paternal drug abuse on infants and children; improved mental and physical health of women and children; prevention of mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among the children; improved parenting skills, family functioning, economic stability, and quality of life; decreased involvement in and exposure to crime, violence, and neglect; and decreased physical, emotional, and sexual abuse for all family members. Women, their adolescents/children (up to age 17), fathers, and other family members who are provided services through grant funds will inform the process to improve systems issues.

    Annual Data Collection Burden Data Collection Burden Instrument/activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour burden
    Progress Report 25 4 100 8 800

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by April 14, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05770 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0052] Agency Information Collection Activities: User Fees AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; Extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: User Fees. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with a change to the burden hours but no change to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before April 14, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 75684) on December 3, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: User Fees.

    OMB Number: 1651-0052.

    Form Number: CBP Forms 339A, 339C and 339V.

    Abstract: The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA- Pub. L. 99-272; 19 U.S.C. 58c) authorizes the collection of user fees by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The collection of these fees requires submission of information from the party remitting the fees to CBP. This information is submitted on three forms including the CBP Form 339A for aircraft at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%20339A.pdf, CBP Form 339C for commercial vehicles at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%20339C.pdf, and CBP Form 339V for vessels at: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CBP%20Form%20339V.pdf. The information on these forms may also be filed electronically at: https://dtops.cbp.dhs.gov/. This collection of information is provided for by 19 CFR 24.22.

    In addition, CBP requires express consignment courier facilities (ECCFs) to file lists of couriers using the facility in accordance with 19 CFR 128.11. In cases of overpayments, carriers using the courier facilities may send a request to CBP for a refund in accordance with 19 CFR 24.23(b). This request must specify the grounds for the refund. ECCFs are also required to file a quarterly report in accordance with 19 CFR 24.23(b)(4).

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the burden hours as a result of a new pilot that CBP is planning that will allow for a new payment option for commercial truck single-crossing user fees. This new pilot program will allow commercial truck carriers who opt for the single-crossing user fee to prepay the single-crossing user fee online via the DTOPS Web site prior to arrival at a port of entry. As a result, the estimated number of users for the DTOPS Web site (Form 339C—Vehicles) was increased from 50,000 to 90,000.

    Type of Review: Extension (with change).

    Affected Public: Carriers.

    CBP Form 339A—Aircraft

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15,000.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 15,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 16 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,005.

    CBP Form 339C—Vehicles

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 90,000.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 90,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 29,700.

    CBP Form 339V—Vessels

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,000.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 10,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 16 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,670.

    ECCF Quarterly Report

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 18.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 72.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 144.

    ECCF Application and List of Couriers

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3.

    Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 12.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05829 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0035] Agency Information Collection Activities: Holders or Containers Which Enter the United States Duty Free AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act: Holders or Containers which enter the United States Duty Free. This is a proposed extension of an information collection that was previously approved. CBP is proposing that this information collection be extended with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected. This document is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be received on or before April 14, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, at 202-325-0265.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (80 FR 80380) on December 24, 2015, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3507). The comments should address: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology; and (e) the annual costs to respondents or record keepers from the collection of information (total capital/startup costs and operations and maintenance costs). The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the CBP request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document, CBP is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: Holders or Containers which Enter the United States Duty Free.

    OMB Number: 1651-0035.

    Abstract: Item 9803.00.50 under the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS), codified as 19 U.S.C. 1202, provides for the duty-free entry of substantial holders or containers of foreign manufacture if duty had been paid upon a previous importation pursuant to the provisions of 19 CFR 10.41b.

    19 CFR 10.41 provides that substantial holders or containers are to have prescribed markings in clear and conspicuous letters of such a size that they will be easily discernable. Section 10.41b of the CBP regulations eliminates the need for an importer to file entry documents by instead requiring the marking of the containers or holders to indicate the HTSUS numbers that provide for duty free treatment of the containers or holders.

    In order to comply with 19 CFR 10.41b, the owner of the holder or container is required to place the markings on a metal tag or plate containing the following information: 9801.00.10, HTSUS; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner. In the case of serially numbered holders or containers of foreign manufacture for which free clearance under 9803.00.50 HTSUS is claimed, the owner must place markings containing the following information: 9803.00.50 HTSUS; the port code numbers of the port of entry; the entry number; the last two digits of the fiscal year of entry covering the importation of the holders and containers on which duty was paid; the name of the owner; and the serial number assigned by the owner.

    Current Action: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (with no change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 18.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 360.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 90.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Tracey Denning, Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05827 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0013] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Travel Document, Form I-131; 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 January 7, 2016, at 81 FR 790, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS did receive three comments in connection with the 60-day notice. Note: USCIS published the 60-day notice as a revision; after further review, USCIS has decided to extend the form without changes.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 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 1615-0013.

    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-2007-0045 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: Application for Travel Document.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-131; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole who need to apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter the United States. Eligible recipients of deferred action under childhood arrivals (DACA) may now request an advance parole documents based on humanitarian, educational and employment reasons. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil).

    (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-131 is 495,090 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours; 71,665 respondents providing biometrics at 1.17 hours; and 293,733 respondents providing passport-style photographs at .50 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 1,171,386 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 $148,493,790.

    Dated: March 10, 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. 2016-05839 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-13] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: FHA Lender Approval, Annual Renewal, Periodic Updates and Required Reports by FHA-Approved Lenders AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD has submitted the proposed information collection requirement described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on September 1, 2015 at 80 FR 52781.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: FHA Lender Approval, Annual Renewal, Periodic Updates and Required Reports by FHA-Approved Lenders.

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0005.

    Type of Request: Revision of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: Online Application for Lender Approval (previously HUD-92001-A) and Annual Certification.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to insure lenders and mortgagees against the risk of loss in connection with certain mortgages under Titles I and II of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1702 et seq. The Secretary is also authorized to prescribe criteria for approval of these lenders and mortgagees to participate in the Department's insured housing programs, including certain statutory and regulatory eligibility requirements set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1702(d)(2) and 24 CFR 202.5. See 12 U.S.C. 1702 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). Criteria for approval to become a Title I and/or Title II Mortgagee are specified in 24 CFR 202 and HUD Handbook 4000.1. Once approved, FHA lenders must provide additional information on an annual basis and within specified timeframes of certain events or business changes in order to maintain their FHA approval. Lenders already approved by FHA submit this information annually using the Lender Electronic Assessment Portal (LEAP), which is accessed via FHA Connection. Prospective lender applicants submit this information electronically using the Online Application for Lender Approval, which is accessed via the hud.gov Web site. The information is used by FHA to verify that lenders meet all approval and eligibility requirements. It is also used to assist FHA in managing its financial risks and to protect consumers from lender noncompliance with FHA regulations. Proposed revisions to the annual certification statements included in FHA's Lender Electronic Assessment Portal (LEAP) and the initial certification statements included in FHA's Online Application for Lender Approval, as well as HUD's responses to comments received from the 60-day notice, are available on HUD's Web site at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/sfh/SFH_policy_drafts.

    Respondents: Regulatory or compliance.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,115.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 13,260.

    Frequency of Response: Annual/Periodic.

    Average Hours per Response: 1.00 hour.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 13,320 hours.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05779 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] HEARTH Act Approval of Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Regulations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 3, 2016, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community leasing regulations under the HEARTH Act. With this approval, the Tribe is authorized to enter into the following type of leases without BIA approval: Business site leases.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharlene Round Face, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services, MS-4642-MIB, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, at (202) 208-3615.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Summary of the HEARTH Act

    The HEARTH (Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership) Act of 2012 (the Act) makes a voluntary, alternative land leasing process available to Tribes, by amending the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955, 25 U.S.C. 415. The Act authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter into agricultural and business leases of Tribal trust lands with a primary term of 25 years, and up to two renewal terms of 25 years each, without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Act also authorizes Tribes to enter into leases for residential, recreational, religious, or educational purposes for a primary term of up to 75 years without the approval of the Secretary. Participating Tribes develop Tribal leasing regulations, including an environmental review process, and then must obtain the Secretary's approval of those regulations prior to entering into leases. The Act requires the Secretary to approve Tribal regulations if the Tribal regulations are consistent with the Department of the Interior's (the Department) leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162 and provide for an environmental review process that meets requirements set forth in the Act. This notice announces that the Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, has approved the Tribal regulations for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.

    II. Federal Preemption of State and Local Taxes

    The Department's regulations governing the surface leasing of trust and restricted Indian lands specify that, subject to applicable Federal law, permanent improvements on leased land, leasehold or possessory interests, and activities under the lease are not subject to State and local taxation and may be subject to taxation by the Indian Tribe with jurisdiction. See 25 CFR 162.017. As explained further in the preamble to the final regulations, the Federal government has a strong interest in promoting economic development, self-determination, and Tribal sovereignty. 77 FR 72440 at 72447-48 (December 5, 2012). The principles supporting the Federal preemption of State law in the field of Indian leasing and the taxation of lease-related interests and activities applies with equal force to leases entered into under Tribal leasing regulations approved by the Federal government pursuant to the HEARTH Act.

    Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. 465, preempts State and local taxation of permanent improvements on trust land. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County, 724 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)). Similarly, section 465 preempts State taxation of rent payments by a lessee for leased trust lands, because “tax on the payment of rent is indistinguishable from an impermissible tax on the land.” See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg, No. 14-14524, *13-*17, n.8 (11th Cir. 2015). In addition, as explained in the preamble to the revised leasing regulations at 25 CFR part 162, Federal courts have applied a balancing test to determine whether State and local taxation of non-Indians on the reservation is preempted. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143 (1980). The Bracker balancing test, which is conducted against a backdrop of “traditional notions of Indian self-government,” requires a particularized examination of the relevant State, Federal, and Tribal interests. We hereby adopt the Bracker analysis from the preamble to the surface leasing regulations, 77 FR at 72447-48, as supplemented by the analysis below.

    The strong Federal and Tribal interests against State and local taxation of improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased under the Department's leasing regulations apply equally to improvements, leaseholds, and activities on land leased pursuant to Tribal leasing regulations approved under the HEARTH Act. Congress's overarching intent was to “allow Tribes to exercise greater control over their own land, support self-determination, and eliminate bureaucratic delays that stand in the way of homeownership and economic development in Tribal communities.” 158 Cong. Rec. H. 2682 (May 15, 2012). The HEARTH Act was intended to afford Tribes “flexibility to adapt lease terms to suit [their] business and cultural needs” and to “enable [Tribes] to approve leases quickly and efficiently.” Id. at 5-6.

    Assessment of State and local taxes would obstruct these express Federal policies supporting Tribal economic development and self-determination, and also threaten substantial Tribal interests in effective Tribal government, economic self-sufficiency, and territorial autonomy. See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2043 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (determining that “[a] key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes more self-sufficient, and better positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on Federal funding”). The additional costs of State and local taxation have a chilling effect on potential lessees, as well as on a Tribe that, as a result, might refrain from exercising its own sovereign right to impose a Tribal tax to support its infrastructure needs. See id. at 2043-44 (finding that State and local taxes greatly discourage Tribes from raising tax revenue from the same sources because the imposition of double taxation would impede Tribal economic growth).

    Just like BIA's surface leasing regulations, Tribal regulations under the HEARTH Act pervasively cover all aspects of leasing. See Guidance for the Approval of Tribal Leasing Regulations under the HEARTH Act, NPM-TRUS-29 (effective Jan. 16, 2013) (providing guidance on Federal review process to ensure consistency of proposed Tribal regulations with part 162 regulations and listing required Tribal regulatory provisions). Furthermore, the Federal government remains involved in the Tribal land leasing process by approving the Tribal leasing regulations in the first instance and providing technical assistance, upon request by a Tribe, for the development of an environmental review process. The Secretary also retains authority to take any necessary actions to remedy violations of a lease or of the Tribal regulations, including terminating the lease or rescinding approval of the Tribal regulations and reassuming lease approval responsibilities. Moreover, the Secretary continues to review, approve, and monitor individual Indian land leases and other types of leases not covered under the Tribal regulations according to the part 162 regulations.

    Accordingly, the Federal and Tribal interests weigh heavily in favor of preemption of State and local taxes on lease-related activities and interests, regardless of whether the lease is governed by Tribal leasing regulations or part 162. Improvements, activities, and leasehold or possessory interests may be subject to taxation by the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.

    Dated: March 3, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05807 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-IMR-YELL-20564; PPIMYELL1W, PROIESUC1.380000 (166)] Proposed Information Collection; Reporting and Recordkeeping for Snowcoaches and Snowmobiles, Yellowstone National Park AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2016. We 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:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please send your comments on the ICR to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Room 2C114, Mail Stop 242, Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1024-0266” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Christina Mills, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Yellowstone National Park, National Park Service, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190; (307) 344-2320 (phone); or [email protected]@nps.gov. Please reference “1024-0266” in your communication.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Yellowstone National Park Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 21 and 22), signed March 1, 1872, established Yellowstone National Park to “dedicate and set apart as a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people” and “for the preservation, from injury or spoliation, of all timber, mineral deposits, natural curiosities, or wonders within said park, and their retention in their natural condition” The Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to develop regulations for national park units under the Department's jurisdiction.

    We (NPS) provide opportunities for people to experience Yellowstone in the winter via oversnow vehicles (snowmobiles and snowcoaches, collectively OSVs). Access to most of the park in the winter is limited by distance and the harsh winter environment, which presents challenges to safety and park operations. The park does not provide wintertime OSV tours directly, but currently authorizes OSV tours through concessions contracts (for snowcoach tours) and commercial use authorizations (for snowmobile tours) with area businesses to provide transportation to visitors (Title IV, Section 403 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-391). The park issued 10-year concession contracts for all OSVs starting in December 2014.

    OSV use is a form of off-road vehicle use governed by Executive Order 11644 (Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands, as amended by Executive Order 11989). Implementing regulations are published at 36 CFR 2.18, 36 CFR part 13, and 43 CFR part 36. Routes and areas may be designated for OSV use only by special regulation after it has first been determined through park planning to be an appropriate use that will meet the requirements of 36 CFR 2.18 and not otherwise result in unacceptable impacts.

    Information collection requirements in this renewal request include:

    (1) Emission and Sound Standards (§ 7.13(l)(4)(vii) and (5)). Only OSVs that meet NPS emission and sound standards may operate in the park. Before the start of each winter season:

    (a) Snowcoach manufacturers or commercial tour operators must demonstrate, by means acceptable to the Superintendent, that their snowcoaches meet the standards.

    (b) Snowmobile manufacturers must demonstrate, by means acceptable to the Superintendent, that their snowmobiles meet the standards.

    (2) Transportation Events (§ 7.13(l)(11)(i)-(iii)). So that we can monitor compliance with the required average and maximum size of transportation events, as of December 15, 2014, each commercial tour operator must:

    (a) Maintain accurate and complete records on the number of snowmobiles and snowcoaches he or she brings into the park on a daily basis. These records must be made available for inspection by the park upon request.

    (b) Provide a monthly use report on their activities. We will use a form, which will be available on the park Web site, to collect the following information for transportation events:

    • Report Month/Year

    • Contract Number

    • Departure Date

    • Duration of Trip (in days)

    • Transportation event type (snowmobile or snowcoach)

    • Number of snowmobiles or snowcoaches

    • Air/noise emissions standard (New BAT or E-BAT)

    • Number of visitors and guides

    • Route and primary destination

    • If the transportation event allocation was from another commercial tour operator

    • Administrative or guest services trip

    • Transportation event group size (previous month and season to-date)

    (3) Enhanced Emission Standards (§ 7.13(l)(11)(iv)). To qualify for the increased average size of snowmobile transportation events or increased maximum size of snowcoach transportation events, each commercial tour operator must:

    (a) Before the start of each winter season, demonstrate, by means acceptable to the Superintendent, that his or her snowmobiles or snowcoaches meet the enhanced emission standards; and

    (b) Maintain separate records for snowmobiles and snowcoaches that meet enhanced emission standards and those that do not.

    We will use the information collected to:

    • Ensure that OSVs meet NPS emission standards to operate in the park;

    • (2) evaluate commercial tour operators' compliance with allocated transportation events and daily and seasonal OSV group size limits,

    • ensure that established daily transportation event limits for the park are not exceeded,

    • confirm that commercial tour operators do not run out of authorizations before the end of the season and create a gap when prospective visitors cannot be accommodated, and

    • guarantee compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

    Responsible commercial tour operators are required to provide this information to minimize liabilities, maintain business records for tax and other purposes, obtain financial backing, and ensure a safe, efficient, and well-planned operation.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-0266.

    Title: Reporting and Recordkeeping for Snowcoaches and Snowmobiles, Yellowstone National Park, 36 CFR 7.13(l).

    Service Form Numbers: NPS Forms 10-650.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals desiring to operate snowcoaches and snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual burden hours
    Meet Emission/Sound Standards—Snowcoaches (7.13(l)(4)(vi)) 12 .5 6 Meet Emission/Sound Standards—Snowmobiles (7.13(l)(5)) 2 .5 1 Report and Recordkeeping (7.13(l)(11)(i)-(iii)) 45 2 90 Meet Enhanced Emission Standards (7.13(l)(11)(iv)) 5 .5 3 Total 64 100

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Cost Burden: None.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05783 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-20326; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 6, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by March 30, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 6, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    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.

    CALIFORNIA Riverside County Alexander, Dr. Franz, House, 1011 W. Cielo Dr., Palm Springs, 16000093 Sacramento County American Cash Apartments—American Cash Store, 1117-1123 8th St., Sacramento, 16000094 San Luis Obispo County Paso Robles Almond Growers Association Warehouse, 525 Riverside Ave., Paso Robles, 16000095 San Mateo County Whifler, William A., House, 1544 Drake Ave., Burlingame, 16000096 Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building, 112 W. Cabrillo St., Santa Barbara, 16000097 COLORADO Montezuma County Cortez High School, 121 E. First St., Cortez, 16000098 MASSACHUSETTS Norfolk County Eustis Estate Historic District, Address Restricted, Milton, 16000099 MISSOURI Cole County St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church and Rectory, (Rural Church Architecture of Missouri, c. 1819 to c. 1945 MPS) 7319 Cty. Rd. M, Taos, 16000100 St. Louis Independent City Alexander, M.W., House, 3965 Westminster Pl., St. Louis (Independent City), 16000101 Holly Hills Historic District, Bounded by Holly Hills Blvd., MPRR, alley N. of Dover Pl., Leona St. & Ray Ave., St. Louis (Independent City), 16000102 Welfare Finance Company Building, 1027-29 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis (Independent City), 16000103 NEBRASKA Adams County Foote Clinic, 422 N. Hastings Ave., Hastings, 16000104 Cass County Ruffner, Peter E., House, 501 N. 8th St., Plattsmouth, 16000105 Otoe County Memorial Building, 810 1st Corso, Nebraska City, 16000106 NEW YORK Columbia County Persons of Color Cemetery at Kinderhook, E. of Rothermel Ave., Kinderhook, 16000107 Erie County Elmwood Historic District East, Portions of Auburn, Bird, Cleveland, Delaware, Elmwood, Forest & Hodge Aves., Anderson, Atlantic & Berkley Pls., Buffalo, 16000108 Essex County Uplands, The, 35 Thorne Way, Keene Valley, 16000109 Jefferson County Public Square Historic District (Boundary Increase), J.B. Wise & Park Pls., Arcade & Stone Sts., Watertown, 16000110 Kings County Crown Heights North Historic District (Boundary Increase), Albany, Brooklyn & St. Mark's Aves., Dean & Pacific Sts., Hampton, Lincoln, Park, Prospect, Revere & St. John's Pls., New York, 16000111 Richmond County Richmond Terrace Cemeteries, 1562 Richmond Terr. & 25 Van St., Staten Island, 16000112 Suffolk County Long Island National Cemetery, (Inter-World War National Cemeteries, 1934-1939 MPS) 2040 Wellwood Ave., Farmingdale, 16000113 OHIO Trumbull County Swift—Kinsman House, 8426 State Rd., Kinsman Township, 16000114 TENNESSEE Bradley County Cleveland Commercial Historic District, Roughly bounded by 50-100 blk. of Central Ave., 10-100 blk. of Church & 100 blk. of Inman Sts., 100 blk. of 2nd St., SE., Cleveland, 16000115 Davidson County Bluefields Historic District, 2600-2733 Bluefield Ave., 201-279 Cumberland & 2700-2724 Overhill Cirs., 104-165 Spring Valley Dr., Nashville, 16000116 Inglewood Place Historic District, Golf, Greenfield, Howard, Jakes, Katherine, Kennedy, Kirkland, McChesney, Riverside, Shelton & Stratford Aves., Nashville, 16000117 Kenner Manor Historic District, 672-910 Clearview Dr., 700-722 Crescent Rd., 100-201 Kenner Ave., 200-313 Woodmont Cir., Nashville, 16000118 Hamblen County Morristown Main Street Historic District, 101-119 E. Main, 200-243 W. Main, 113-133, 118-134 N. Henry, 111-121 N. Cumberland, 110-128 S. Cumberland Sts., Morristown, 16000120 Knox County Hilltop, (Knoxville and Knox County MPS) 5617 Lyons View Pike, Knoxville, 16000119 TEXAS Nueces County 600 Building, 600 Leopard St., Corpus Christi, 16000121 Tarrant County Rogers, Will, Memorial Center, 3401 W. Lancaster Ave., Fort Worth, 16000122 UTAH Davis County Smoot Dairy Farmhouse, 1697 N. Main St., Centerville, 16000123 Salt Lake County Sugden, Roberta, House, 1810 E. Orchard Dr., Salt Lake City, 16000124 Warehouse District (Boundary Increase), (Salt Lake City Business District MRA) Roughly bounded by I-15, US 50 S., W. Temple St., 300 West & 1000 South, Salt Lake City, 16000125

    A request to move has been received for the following resource:

    CONNECTICUT Fairfield County Hoyt-Barnum House, 713 Bedford St., Stamford, 69000199

    A request for removal has been received for the following resources:

    NEBRASKA Adams County Antioch School, Near Crooked Creek, Pauline, 88000914 Franklin County Lincoln Hotel, 519 15th Ave., Franklin, 89000799 TENNESSEE Obion County Colored Hotel, 208 Nash St., Union City, 08000284 VERMONT Addison County Brooksville Advent Church, 1338 Dog Team Tavern Rd., New Haven, 02001380 Dog Team Tavern, 1338 Dog Team Tavern Rd., New Haven, 02001381 Chittenden County Chittenden County Courthouse, 180 Church St., Burlington, 73000192 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

    Dated: February 10, 2016. Elaine Jackson-Retondo, Acting Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05735 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-539 and 731-TA-1280-1282 (Final)] Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Korea, Mexico, and Turkey; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-539 and 731-TA-1280-1282 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey, provided for in subheadings 7306.61.10 and 7306.61.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less-than-fair-value and subsidized by the government of Turkey.1

    1 For purposes of these investigations, the Department of Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as certain heavy walled rectangular welded steel pipes and tubes of rectangular (including square) cross section, having a nominal wall thickness of not less than 4 mm. The merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A-500, grade B specifications, or comparable domestic or foreign specifications. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 80 FR 80749, December 28, 2015; Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Turkey: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10583, March 1, 2016; Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10585, March 1, 2016; Heavy Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes From Mexico: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 10587, March 1, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Carlson (202-205-3002), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of affirmative preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that certain benefits which constitute subsidies within the meaning of section 703 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b) are being provided to manufacturers, producers, or exporters in Turkey of heavy walled rectangular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, and that such products from Korea, Mexico, and Turkey are being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The investigations were requested in petitions filed on July 21, 2015, by Atlas Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group (Chicago, Illinois), Bull Moose Tube Company (Chesterfield, Missouri), EXLTUBE (North Kansas City, Missouri), Hannibal Industries, Inc. (Los Angeles, California), Independence Tube Corporation (Chicago, Illinois), Maruichi American Corporation (Santa Fe Springs, California), Searing Industries (Rancho Cucamonga, California), Southland Tube (Birmingham, Alabama), and Vest, Inc. (Los Angeles, California).

    For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 29, 2016, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of these investigations beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 14, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before July 8, 2016. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on July 11, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by §§ 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is July 7, 2016. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in § 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is July 21, 2016. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before July 21, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before August 12, 2016, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 10, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05812 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1314 (Preliminary)] Phosphor Copper From Korea; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigation and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigation AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1314 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of phosphor copper from Korea, provided for in subheading 7405.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by April 25, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by May 2, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: March 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Szustakowski ((202) 205-3169), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—This investigation is being instituted, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on March 9, 2016, by Metallurgical Products Company, West Chester, PA.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 30, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before Monday, March 28, 2016. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before April 4, 2016, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 9, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05746 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1123-0010] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Request for Registration Under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until May 16, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Sandra A. Holland, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Criminal Division, Office of Enforcement Operations, Gambling Device Registration Program, JCK Building, Washington, DC 20530-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies 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 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Registration Under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DOJ\CRM\OEO\GDR-1. Sponsoring component: Criminal Division, Department of Justice.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: Not-for-profit institutions, individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Government. The form can be used by any entity required to register under the Gambling Devices Act of 1962 (15 U.S.C. 1171-1178).

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 7,800 respondents will complete each form within approximately 5 minutes.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 650 total annual burden hours associated with this collection.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05734 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    On March 7, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Vigindustries Inc., Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00721-MGL.

    The United States, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA), filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The complaint seeks performance of response actions to address the International Mineral and Chemical Corporation Fertilizer Superfund Site in Spartanburg, South Carolina, recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases of hazardous substances at the site, and recovery of costs that the United States will incur overseeing implementation of the remedy at the site. The proposed consent decree requires Vigindustries, Inc. to perform the remedial action that EPA selected for the site, pay $116,635.85 in unreimbursed response costs, and pay response costs to be incurred by EPA at the site.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Vigindustries Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-11251. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By email [email protected] By mail Assistant Attorney General,
  • U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611
  • During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to:

    Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $63.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $9.75.

    Henry S. Friedman, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05765 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0049] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy (ATF F 6330.1.) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1214, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Sheila Hopkins, Program Manager, National Laboratory Center, 6000 Ammendale Road, Ammendale, MD 20705 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for National Firearms Examiner Academy.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF F 6330.1.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Other: Federal Government.

    Abstract: The Office of Science and Technology, Forensic Services offers the National Firearms Examiner Academy (NFEA) training program for entry level firearms and toolmark examiners. This program is designed in part to address the critical law enforcement needs of the services provided by firearms and toolmark examiners, and is to be offered qualified applicants from state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies and to newly appointed ATF firearms and toolmark examiners.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 75 respondents will take 12 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 15 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05786 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0043] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; National Tracing Center Trace Request (ATF F 3312.1) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 2912, on January 19, 2016 allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Larry Penninger, Jr., National Tracing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at telephone number or email: 1-800-788-7133 or [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: National Tracing Center Trace Request

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF F 3312.1.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Federal Government.

    Other: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Abstract: The ATF Form 3312.1 is used by Federal, State, local and certain foreign law enforcement officials to request that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) trace firearms used or suspected to have been used in crimes.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 6,103 respondents will take 6 minutes to complete the form.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 34,448 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05785 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0006] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles, ATF Form 6, Part II (5330.3B) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1217, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Desiree Dickinson, Industry Liaison, Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition and Defense Articles.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 6, Part II (5330.3B).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households.

    Other: Business or other for-profit; Federal Government; State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Abstract: The form is used to determine if the article(s) described on the application qualifies for importation by the importer, and to serve as the authorization for the importer. In addition, information may be disclosed to other Federal, State, foreign and local law enforcement and regulatory agency personnel to verify information on the application, and to aid in the performance of their duties with respect to the enforcement and regulation of firearms and/or ammunition where such disclosure is not prohibited by law.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 400 respondents will take 30 minutes to complete the form.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 200 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05793 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0002] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1216, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Laurie O'Lena, Program Manager, ATF National Center for Explosives Training and Research Corporal Road, Bldg. 3750 Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL 35898 at email: Laura.O'[email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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 (check justification or form 83-I): Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Restoration of Firearms Privileges.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Departmentsponsoring the collection:

    Form number (if applicable): ATF F 3210.1.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households.

    Other (if applicable): None.

    Abstract: The information requested is collected to fulfill the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. Under Federal law, individuals prohibited from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms are permitted to apply for restoration of their firearms privileges. The information to be supplied must identify the specifics of the applicant's appeal for restoration of privileges. The information is investigated, processed, examined, and stored initially at ATF Headquarters.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 250 respondents will take 30 minutes to complete the survey.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 125 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05792 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0094] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Certification of Qualifying State Relief From Disabilities Program (ATF Form 3210.12) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1221, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please Carolyn King, Program Manager, Firearms Explosives Industry Division, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226, at telephone number or email: 202-648-7825 or [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Certification of Qualifying State Relief from Disabilities Program.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 3210.12.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Other: None.

    Abstract: This form is to be used by a State to certify to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that it has established a qualifying mental health relief from firearms disabilities program that satisfies certain minimum criteria established by the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007, Public Law 110-180, Section 105, enacted January 8, 2008 (NIAA). This certification is required for States to be eligible for certain grants authorized by the NIAA.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 50 respondents will take 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 13 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05790 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1117-0008] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection, Application for Procurement Quota for a Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine, DEA Form 250 AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 1219, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —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; —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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be collected can be enhanced; and —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 forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Procurement Quota for Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine (DEA Form 250).

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DEA Form 250. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.

    Affected public (Other): None.

    Abstract: Any United States companies that desire to use any basic class of controlled substances listed in schedule I or II or the List I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine for purposes of manufacturing during the next calendar year shall apply on DEA Form 250 for a procurement quota for such class.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The DEA estimates that each form takes 0.5 hours to complete. In total, 417 respondents submit 2,960 responses, with each response taking 0.5 hours to complete.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: The DEA estimates that this collection takes 1,480 annual burden hours.

    If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05796 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1117-0006] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection, eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Previously Approved Collection Application for Individual Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class of Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine DEA Form 189 AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 1219, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have comments on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Barbara J. Boockholdt, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —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; —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; —Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information proposed to be collected can be enhanced; and —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 forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Individual Manufacturing Quota for a Basic Class of Controlled Substance and for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine (DEA Form 189).

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Form Number: DEA Form 189. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Affected public (Primary): Business or other for-profit.

    Affected public (Other): None.

    Abstract: The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) require that any person who is registered to manufacture any basic class of controlled substances listed in Schedule I or II and who desires to manufacture a quantity of such class; or who desires to manufacture using the List I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine, must complete the DEA Form 189 online, for a manufacturing quota for such quantity of such class or List I chemical.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The DEA estimates that each form takes 0.5 hours to complete. In total, 34 respondents submit 660 responses, with each response taking 0.5 hours to complete.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the proposed collection: The DEA estimates that this collection takes 330 annual burden hours.

    If additional information is required please contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Suite 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05791 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0077] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Stolen or Lost ATF Forms 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosive Coupon AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1225, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Christopher Reeves, Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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 (check justification or form 83-I): Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Stolen or Lost ATF Forms 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase Explosive Coupon.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number (if applicable): ATF Form 5400.30.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other (if applicable): Individuals or households.

    Abstract: When any Intrastate Purchase of Explosives Coupon is stolen, lost or destroyed, the person losing possession will, upon discovery of the theft, loss or destruction, immediately, but in all cases before 24 hours have elapsed since discovery, report the matter to the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 10 respondents will take 20 minutes to complete the survey.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 3.5 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05788 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0075] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees, Limited AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1213, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Transactions Among Licensees/Permittees, Limited

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: None.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: None.

    Abstract: Specific requirements for licensees and permittees regarding limited explosive permits are outlined in this information collection. The transactions are stated in #1. of this supporting statement. This information will be used by ATF to implement the provisions of the Safe Explosives Act.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 125 respondents will take 30 minutes to provide the required information.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 63 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05787 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0025] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Limited Permittee Transaction Report (ATF Form 5400.4) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1218, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Anita Scheddel, Program Analyst, Explosives Industry Programs Branch, 99 New York Ave. NE., Washington, DC 20226 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Limited Permittee Transaction Report

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF F 5400.4.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households.

    Other: Businesses or other non-profit.

    Abstract: The purpose of this collection is to enable ATF to determine whether limited permittees have exceeded the number of receipts of explosives materials they are allowed and to determine the eligibility of such persons to purchase explosive materials.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 125 respondents will take 20 minutes to complete the form.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 250 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05795 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0081] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Appeals of Background Checks AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1220, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Shawn Stevens, Federal Explosives Licensing Center, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, at email or telephone number: [email protected] or 1-877-283-3352. Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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 (check justification or form 83-I): Extension of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Appeals of Background Checks.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number (if applicable): None.

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Individuals or households.

    Other (if applicable): Businesses or other non-profit.

    Abstract: This collection allows responsible person or employee to challenge an adverse background check determination by submitting appropriate documentation to the ATF.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 500 respondents will take 2 hours to complete the survey.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 1,000 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05789 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1140-0009] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application To Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles—ATF Form 4587 (5330.4) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register 81 FR 1211, on January 11, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 14, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Desiree M. Dickinson, Industry Liaison, ATF Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 at email: [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions can also be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503 or sent to OIRA_submissio[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    • 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;

    • 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;

    • Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

    • 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: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Register as an Importer of U.S. Munitions Import List Articles.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:

    Form number: ATF Form 4587 (5330.4).

    Component: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Business or other for-profit.

    Other: None.

    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection is to allow ATF to determine if the registrant qualifies to engage in the business of importing a firearm or firearms, ammunition, and the implements of war, and to facilitate the collection of registration fees.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: An estimated 300 respondents will take 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated annual public burden associated with this collection is 150 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 3E-405B, Washington, DC 20530. Dated: March 10, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05794 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Handbook ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Handbook,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before April 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201510-1205-005 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Submit comments about this request by mail or courier to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected] Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor-OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-693-8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at [email protected]

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Handbook information collection. The Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Act (UCXA), 5 U.S.C. 8521 et seq., provides unemployment insurance protection to former members of the Armed Forces. The UCXA requires a State Workforce Agency (SWA) to administer the Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX) Program in accordance with the same terms and conditions of State unemployment insurance law that apply to unemployed claimants who have worked in the private sector. Each SWA must obtain certain military service information about a claimant filing for UCX benefits in order to make a benefit-eligibility determination. A SWA may record or obtain required UCX information on Form ETA-843, Request for Military Document and Information. Use of this form may be essential to the UCX claims process. Optional-use Form ETA-841, Request for Determination of Federal Military Service and Wages, is also part of this information collection. Information pertaining to the UCX claimant can only be obtained from the individual's military discharge papers, the appropriate branch of military service, or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Without a claimant's military information, a SWA cannot adequately determine the eligibility of ex-servicemembers and would not be properly able to administer the program. UCXA section 3 and Social Security Act section 303(a)(6) authorize this information collection. See 5 U.S.C. 8523; 42 U.S.C. 503(a)(6).

    This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1205-0176.

    OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2016. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2015 (80 FR 48339).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1205-0176. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • 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;

    • 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 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.

    Agency: DOL-ETA.

    Title of Collection: Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers Handbook.

    OMB Control Number: 1205-0176.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 102,735.

    Total Estimated Number of Responses: 107,816.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 2,139 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05809 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Office of Federal Procurement Policy; Determination of Statutory Formula Benchmark Compensation Amount for Certain Executives and Contractor Employees AGENCY:

    Office of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Management and Budget is publishing the attached memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies announcing that the “benchmark compensation amount” for certain executives and contractor employees in terms of costs allowable under Federal Government covered contracts during the contractor's fiscal years 2013 and 2014 is $980,796 and $1,144,888, respectively. These statutory formula cap determinations are required under Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 1127). These benchmark compensation amounts apply to both defense and civilian agencies for their respective applicable periods, but only for contracts awarded before June 24, 2014.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raymond Wong, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, at 202-395-6805.

    Anne E. Rung, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM: Anne E. Rung, Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy. SUBJECT: Determination of the Statutory Formula Benchmark Compensation Amount for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 for Certain Executives and Contractor Employees, Pursuant to Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 1127)

    This memorandum sets forth the benchmark compensation amount for certain employees of Federal Government contractors as required by Section 39 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 1127, otherwise known as the statutory formula cap) for the cost allowability purposes of section 4304(a)(16) of title 41 and section 2324(e)(1)(P) of title 10 for covered contracts awarded before June 24, 2014. For covered contracts awarded on or after June 24, 2014, a new cap applies pursuant to section 702 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA), Pub. L. 113-67, December 26, 2013.

    For contracts awarded prior to June 24, 2014, section 1127 limits the reimbursement or allowability of compensation costs under Federal Government contracts as implemented at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 31.205-6(p). In less technical terms, the statutory formula cap places a ceiling on the total annual compensation costs the Federal Government will reimburse a contractor for the compensation package the contractor provides to certain of its employees for work done pursuant to certain Federal Government covered contracts. This statutory formula cap applies to limit the reimbursement of the compensation costs of certain contractor senior executives on covered contracts with civilian and defense agencies. Additionally, as a result of changes made by section 803 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012, Public Law 112-81, December 31, 2011, for covered contracts with defense agencies (i.e., DOD, NASA and Coast Guard), the statutory formula cap was expanded to cover all other contractor employees and applies to the compensation costs incurred after December 31, 2011. With both civilian and defense agencies, the statutory formula cap applies only when the contractor is performing covered contracts that are of either a cost-reimbursable nature or other cost-based nature.

    Section 1127 sets out a formula for determining the cap amount. Specifically, the statutory formula cap amount is set at the median (50th percentile) amount of compensation provided, over the most recent year for which data is available, to the five most highly compensated employees in management positions at each home office and each segment of all publicly-owned U.S. companies with annual sales over $50 million. The determination is based on analysis of data made available by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Compensation means the total amount of wages, salaries, bonuses, restricted stock, deferred and performance incentive compensation, and other compensation for the year, whether paid, earned, or otherwise accruing, as recorded in the employer's cost accounting records for the year.

    Since enactment of the statutory formula in 1998, the cap has increased more than 300%. In 2010, the President began calling on Congress to replace the current statutory formula cap with a lower, more sensible limit that is on par with what the Government pays its own executives and employees. In December 2013, with the Administration's strong support, Congress reformed the ceiling on the reimbursement of contractor employee compensation. Section 702 of the BBA replaced section 1127 with a new cap of $487,000 to be adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Employment Cost Index for all workers as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (otherwise known as the BBA cap). The new $487,000 BBA cap provides a reasonable level of compensation for high value Federal contractor employees while ensuring taxpayers are not saddled with paying excessive compensation costs. On June 24, 2014, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued an interim rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to reflect the new BBA cap and issuance of a final rule is pending. However, the new $487,000 BBA cap applies on a prospective basis only to contracts awarded on or after June 24, 2014. Because the statutory formula cap continues to apply to contracts awarded before June 24, 2014, the Administration is compelled by statute to determine the statutory formula cap amount for FYs 2013 and 2014 in accordance with the statutory formula set forth in section 1127 to address these pre-existing contracts.

    After consultation with the Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, OFPP has determined, pursuant to the requirements of section 1127, that the statutory formula cap amount for the ceiling on the compensation of a contractor employee covered by this provision is $980,796 for FY 2013, and $1,144,888 for FY 2014. Each of these statutory formula cap amounts applies to limit the reimbursement, by the Government to the contractor, of the costs of compensation for certain contractor employees for costs incurred on all covered contracts, at the beginning of the contractor FY that begins January 1 for the respective year (or pro-rated over that portion of the contractor FY that includes January 1 for the respective year). The statutory formula cap amount (i.e., $980,796) for FY 2013 is applicable to compensation costs incurred on all covered contracts during the period of January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 for the contractor's fiscal year. The statutory formula cap amount (i.e., $1,144,888) for FY 2014 is applicable on all covered contracts to compensation costs incurred as of January 1, 2014 and continues in subsequent contractor FYs, unless and until revised by OFPP. As explained above, this statutory formula cap applies only to covered contracts awarded before June 24, 2014 for both defense and civilian procurement agencies to limit the reimbursement of the compensation costs for certain contractor employees.

    Employers continue to have the discretion to compensate their employees at any level they deem appropriate. The statutory formula cap only limits how much the Government will reimburse the contractors for the services of those affected employees.

    Questions concerning this memorandum may be addressed to Raymond Wong, OFPP, at 202-395-6805.

    [FR Doc. 2016-05766 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES Meetings of Humanities Panel AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold twenty-three meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during April, 2016. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.

    DATES:

    See Supplementary Information section for meeting dates.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting room numbers.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 606-8322; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings:

    1. DATE: April 1, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Next Generation Ph.D.: Planning Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    2. DATE: April 4, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Next Generation Ph.D.: Planning Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    3. DATE: April 5, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 4002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of World Art and Culture, for Museums, Libraries and Cultural Organizations: Planning Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    4. DATE: April 6, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Via Conference Call.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of U.S. History and Culture, for Museums, Libraries and Cultural Organizations: Planning Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs

    5. DATE: April 6, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for Next Generation Ph.D.: Planning Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants.

    6. DATE: April 7, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 4002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of History and Culture, for Media Projects: Production Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    7. DATE: April 7, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the National Digital Newspaper Program, submitted to the Division of Preservation and Access.

    8. DATE: April 11, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Via Conference Call.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Cultural History, for Media Projects: Development Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    9. DATE: April 12, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Seminars for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    10. DATE: April 13, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Institutes for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    11. DATE: April 14, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Seminars for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    12. DATE: April 15, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Institutes for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    13. DATE: April 18, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Landmarks of American History and Culture: Workshops for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    14. DATE: April 19, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Landmarks of American History and Culture: Workshops for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    15. DATE: April 19, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Via Conference Call.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of History, for Media Projects: Development Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    16. DATE: April 20, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Via Conference Call.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of History and Culture for Museums, Libraries, and Cultural Organizations: Planning Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    17. DATE: April 20, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Landmarks of American History and Culture: Workshops for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    18. DATE: April 21, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Virtual Panel.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Landmarks of American History and Culture: Workshops for School Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    19. DATE: April 25, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 2002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Geospatial and Visualization, for Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    20. DATE: April 25, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: Via Conference Call.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of U.S. History and Culture, for Museums, Libraries, and Cultural Organizations: Planning Grants, submitted to the Division of Public Programs.

    21. DATE: April 26, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: P002.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Institutes for College and University Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    22. DATE: April 27, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: P002.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Institutes for College and University Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    23. DATE: April 27, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 2002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of Research, for Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    24. DATE: April 28, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 2002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Public Programs and Education, for Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    25. DATE: April 28, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: P002.

    This meeting will discuss applications for the Seminars for College Teachers grant program, submitted to the Division of Education Programs.

    26. DATE: April 29, 2016.

    TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ROOM: 2002.

    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Scholarly Communications and Collections, for Digital Humanities Implementation Grants, submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.

    Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.

    Dated: March 10, 2016. Elizabeth Voyatzis, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05805 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 30738, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Comments regarding (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of 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 should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725—17th Street NW. Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to [email protected] Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.

    NSF 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.

    Under OMB regulations, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Call or write, Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington, VA 22230, or by email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Survey of Grantees of Science, Engineering and Research for Sustainability (SEES) Portfolio of Programs OMB Approval Number: 3145-NEW7555-01-P National Science Foundation Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; NSF's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) Portfolio of Programs Survey; Proposed Information Collection Request. AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request establishment and clearance of this collection. In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than three years.

    A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES: Submit comments before May 16, 2016. ADDRESSES: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected] Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling (703) 292-7556. Instructions: Please submit one copy of your comments by only one method. All submissions received must include the agency name and collection name identified above for this information collection. Commenters are strongly encouraged to transmit their comments electronically via email. Comments, including any personal information provided become a matter of public record. They will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request. For Further Information Contact: Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to [email protected] Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling (703) 292-7556. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Survey of Grantees of SEES and Comparable Non-SEES Programs

    OMB Number: 3145-NEW

    Type of request: Intent to seek approval for ICR

    Abstract

    In 2010, NSF established the SEES Portfolio as a multi-year effort to coordinate Agency research and education activities related to the environment, energy and sustainability. The overarching goals of the SEES portfolio are to 1) support interdisciplinary research and education that can facilitate the move towards global sustainability; 2) build linkages among existing projects and partners and add new participants in the sustainability research enterprise; and 3) develop a workforce trained in the interdisciplinary scholarship needed to understand and address the complex issues of sustainability.

    NSF is supporting an evaluation of the SEES portfolio to determine the extent to which it has achieved its program- and portfolio-level goals. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to measure the output and outcomes of SEES in terms of the development of new knowledge and concepts that advance the overarching goal of a sustainable human future, new and productive connections made between researchers in a range of disciplines, and the development of a workforce capable of meeting sustainability challenges.

    This comment request relates to a proposed survey of NSF grant recipients. The survey respondents are principal investigators (PIs) in NSF-funded SEES and comparable non-SEES projects. The survey will collect information on respondents' career pathways, NSF grant activities, and the development of interdisciplinary networks of scholars among researchers.

    I. Review Focus

    NSF is interested in comments on the practical utility of the survey in view of the project goals and the study approach, the burden on respondents and potential ways to minimize it.

    Comments submitted in response to this Notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record.

    II. Current Actions Affected Public: Grant recipients of NSF SEES and comparable non-SEES Programs

    Total Respondents: 950

    Frequency: One-time collection

    Total responses: 760

    Average Time per response: 45 minutes

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 576.3 hours

    Dated: March 9, 2016. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-05760 Filed 3-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0050] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from February 13, 2016, to February 29, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on March 1, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by April 14, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by May 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0050. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0050 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0050.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0050, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested person(s) should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the NRC's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the requestor/petitioner seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.

    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the requestor/petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the requestor/petitioner to relief. A requestor/petitioner who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that person's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence and to submit a cross-examination plan for cross-examination of witnesses, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by May 16, 2016. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions for leave to intervene set forth in this section, except that under § 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may also have the opportunity to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who does not wish, or is not qualified, to become a party to the proceeding may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of position on the issues, but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Persons desiring to make a limited appearance are requested to inform the Secretary of the Commission by May 16, 2016.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or petition for hearing (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. System requirements for accessing the E-Submittal server are detailed in the NRC's “Guidance for Electronic Submission,” which is available on the agency's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may attempt to use other software not listed on the Web site, but should note that the NRC's E-Filing system does not support unlisted software, and the NRC Meta System Help Desk will not be able to offer assistance in using unlisted software.

    If a participant is electronically submitting a document to the NRC in accordance with the E-Filing rule, the participant must file the document using the NRC's online, Web-based submission form. In order to serve documents through the Electronic Information Exchange System, users will be required to install a Web browser plug-in from the NRC's Web site. Further information on the Web-based submission form, including the installation of the Web browser plug-in, is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC Meta System Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Meta System Help Desk is available between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at http://ehd1.nrc.gov/ehd/, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, or the presiding officer. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or home phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. However, in some instances, a request to intervene will require including information on local residence in order to demonstrate a proximity assertion of interest in the proceeding. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Requests for hearing, petitions for leave to intervene, and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the 60-day deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(iii).

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414, Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1 and 2, York County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: January 18, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16026A048.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would modify the Renewed Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications (TS) for CNS, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the proposed amendments request to revise TS 5.5.2, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to allow an increase in the existing Type A Integrated Leakage Rate Test (ILRT) program test interval from 10 years to 15 years in accordance with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report NE1 94-01, Revision 3-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,” and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A; adoption of an extension of the containment isolation valve leakage testing (Type C) frequency from the 60 months currently permitted by 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, Option B, to a 75-month frequency for Type C leakage rate testing of selected components, in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A; adoption of the use of ANSI/ANS 56.8-2002, “Containment System Leakage Testing Requirements”; and adoption of a more conservative grace interval of 9 months for Type A, Type B, and Type C leakage tests in accordance with NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. The proposed amendments also request the following administrative changes: Deletion of the information regarding the performance of containment visual inspections as required by Regulatory Position C.3, as the containment inspections are addressed in TS Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.1, deletion of the information regarding the performance of the next CNS, Unit 1, Type A test no later than November 13, 2015, and the next CNS, Unit 2, Type A test no later than February 6, 2008, as both Type A tests have already occurred.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below with NRC edits in square brackets:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) involves the extension of the Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS) Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. The containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing the Type A test frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen years, measured, as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 0.026 person-rem/year. EPRI Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of [less than or equal to] 1.0 person-rem per year, or [less than or equal to] 1% of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The CNS Type A test history supports this conclusion.

    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section Xl, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for CNS. This exception was for activities that have already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the CNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components.

    The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for CNS. This exception was for activities that have already taken; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.2 involves the extension of the CNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.

    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests, and Type C tests for CNS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval, and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section Xl, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A, and Type C test intervals.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for CNS. This exception was for activities that have already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Associate General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street-EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket No. 50-261, H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Darlington County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: November 19, 2015. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15323A085.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow the extension of the Type A containment test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type B and Type C test intervals for selected components to 120 months and 75 months, respectively. The proposed amendment also deletes from the TSs an already implemented one-time extension of the Type A test frequency.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) involves the extension of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 (HBRSEP2) Type A containment test interval to 15 years, the extension of the Type B test intervals to 120 months for selected components, and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type B test interval of each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 120 months. The current Type C test interval of each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions. The proposed extensions do not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. The containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing the Type A test frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen years, measured, as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 0.020 person-rem [roentgen equivalent man]/year. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A, states that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of ≤1.0 person-rem per year, or ≤1% of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended integrated leak rate test (ILRT) intervals. Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    As documented in NUREG-1493, Type B and C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The HBRSEP2 Type A test history supports this conclusion.

    The integrity of the containment is subject to two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test. Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HBRSEP2. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place so the deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the HBRSEP2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years, the Type B test interval to 120 months for selected components and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HBRSEP2. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place so the deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.16 involves the extension of the HBRSEP2 Type A containment test interval to 15 years, the Type B test interval to 120 months for selected components and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.

    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests, Type B tests and Type C tests for HBRSEP2. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval, the 120-month Type B interval and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Types B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with ASME Section XI, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Types A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A, Type B and Type C test intervals.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extension of the ILRT test frequency for HBRSEP2. This exception was for an activity that has already taken place so the deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the unit is operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Lara S. Nichols, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 550 South Tyron Street, Mail Code DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202.

    NRC Branch Chief: Benjamin G. Beasley.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: January 15, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16015A316.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would reduce the reactor vessel steam dome pressure associated with the Technical Specification (TS) Safety Limits (SLs) specified in TS 2.1.1 and TS 2.1.2. The amendments would also revise the setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation function in TS Table 3.3.2-2. The proposed changes address a 10 CFR part 21 issue concerning the potential to violate the SLs limits during a pressure regulator failure maximum demand (open) transient.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because decreasing the reactor vessel steam dome pressure in TS Safety Limits 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 for reactor thermal power ranges and increasing the trip setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation effectively expands the validity range for GEXL critical power correlation and the calculation of the minimum critical power ratio. The critical power ratio rises during the pressure reduction following the scram that terminates the Pressure Regulator Failure Maximum Demand (Open) (PRFO) transient. The reduction in the reactor vessel steam dome pressure value in the SL and the increase in the trip setpoint and the allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation provides adequate margin to accommodate the pressure reduction during the PRFO transient within the revised TS limit.

    The proposed changes do not alter the use of the analytical methods used to determine the safety limits that have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. The proposed changes are in accordance with an NRC approved critical power correlation methodology and do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors.

    The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the applicable acceptance limits. The proposed changes are consistent with the safety analysis and resultant consequences.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed reduction in the reactor vessel steam dome pressure value in the safety limit in conjunction with the increase in the trip setpoint and the allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation reflects a wider range of applicability for the GEXL critical power correlation which is approved by the NRC for both GE14 and GNF2 fuel types in [the] LGS reactor cores.

    In addition, no new failure modes are being introduced. There are no changes in the method by which any plant systems perform a safety function. No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of the proposed changes.

    The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident precursors, nor do they involve any changes in the methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed changes do not alter the outcome of the safety analysis.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, and through the parameters for safe operation and setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to transients and design basis accidents. Evaluation of the 10 CFR part 21 condition by General Electric determined that, since the critical power ratio improves during the PRFO transient, there is no impact on the fuel safety margin, and therefore, there is no challenge to fuel cladding integrity. The proposed changes do not change the requirements governing operation or availability of safety equipment assumed to operate to preserve the margin of safety.

    The proposed changes are consistent with the applicable NRC approved critical power correlation for the fuel designs in use at LGS. The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which the safety limits are determined.

    The reduction in value of the reactor vessel steam dome pressure safety limit and the increase in the trip setpoint and allowable value for the main steam line low pressure isolation provides adequate margin to accommodate the pressure reduction during the PRFO transient within the revised TS limit.

    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, et al., Docket No. 50-346, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1, Ottawa County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: February 17, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16049A513.

    Description of amendment request: The licensee proposes to change the emergency plan for DBNPS, Unit No. 1, by revising the emergency action level (EAL) scheme based on the Nuclear Energy institute's (NEl's) guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, “Development of Emergency Action Levels for Non-Passive Reactors.” The NEI 99-01, Revision 6, was endorsed by the NRC by letter dated March 28, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12346A463).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to DBNPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not alter any of the requirements of the technical specifications. The proposed changes do not modify any plant equipment and do not impact any failure modes that could lead to an accident. Additionally, the proposed changes do not impact the ability of structures, systems, or components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to DBNPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. DBNPS functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to DBNPS's EAL scheme to adopt the NRC-endorsed guidance in NEI 99-01, Revision 6, do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes. There are no changes being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed EAL scheme change. The proposed change does not affect the technical specifications. There are no changes to environmental conditions of any of the SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix E will continue to be met.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: David W. Jenkins, Attorney, FirstEnergy Corporation, Mail Stop A-GO-15, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308.

    Acting NRC Branch Chief: Justin C. Poole.

    Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: January 29, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16034A032.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would modify technical specification (TS) requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01, “Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,” as described in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-523, Revision 2, “Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.”

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs [Surveillance Requirements] that require verification that the ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System], RHR [Residual Heat Removal] System, and the Containment Spray (CTS) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CTS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CTS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Robert B. Haemer, Senior Nuclear Counsel, One Cook Place, Bridgman, MI 49106.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, San Luis Obispo County, California

    Date of amendment request: January 21, 2106. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16021A067.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise or add Surveillance Requirements to verify that the system locations susceptible to gas accumulation are sufficiently filled with water and to provide allowances, which permit performance of the verification. The amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.4.6, “RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Loops—MODE 4”; TS 3.4.7, “RCS Loops—MODE 5, Loops Filled”; TS 3.4.8, “RCS Loops—MODE 5, Loops Not Filled”; TS 3.5.2, “ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]—Operating”; TS 3.6.6, “Containment Spray and Cooling Systems”; TS 3.9.5, “RHR [Residual Heat Removal] and Coolant Circulation—High Water Level”; and TS 3.9.6, “RHR and Containment Circulation—Low Water Level.” The proposed amendments would modify TS requirements to address Generic Letter 2008-01, “Managing Gas Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Spray Systems,” as described in Technical Specification Task Force TSTF-523, Revision 2, “Generic Letter 2008-01, Managing Gas Accumulation.”

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds Surveillance Requirement(s) (SRs) that require verification that the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System, and the Containment Spray (CS) System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. Gas accumulation in the subject systems is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. As a result, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The proposed SRs ensure that the subject systems continue to be capable to perform their assumed safety function and are not rendered inoperable due to gas accumulation. Thus, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly increased.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, RHR System, and CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. In addition, the proposed change does not impose any new or different requirements that could initiate an accident. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis and is consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises or adds SRs that require verification that the ECCS, the RHR System, and the CS System are not rendered inoperable due to accumulated gas, and to provide allowances which permit performance of the revised verification. The proposed change adds new requirements to manage gas accumulation in order to ensure the subject systems are capable of performing their assumed safety functions. The proposed SRs are more comprehensive than the current SRs, and will ensure that the assumptions of the safety analysis are protected. The proposed change does not adversely affect any current plant safety margins or the reliability of the equipment assumed in the safety analysis. Therefore, there are no changes being made to any safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer Post, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120.

    NRC Branch Chief: Robert J. Pascarelli.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: January 19, 2016. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16019A403.

    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes to depart from Tier 2* information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (which includes the plant-specific design control document Tier 2 information) related to the construction methods used for the composite floors and roof of the auxiliary building.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The design functions of the nuclear island structures are to provide support, protection, and separation for the seismic Category I mechanical and electrical equipment located in the nuclear island. The nuclear island structures are structurally designed to meet seismic Category I requirements as defined in Regulatory Guide 1.29.

    The use of ACI 349 and AISC N690 provides criteria for the design, qualification, fabrication, and inspection of composite steel beam floors and roof in the auxiliary building. These structures continue to meet the applicable portions of ACI 349 and AISC N690. The proposed change does not have an adverse impact on the response of the nuclear island structures to safe shutdown earthquake ground motions or loads due to anticipated transients or postulated accident conditions. The change does not impact the support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. There is no change to plant systems or the response of systems to postulated accident conditions. There is no change to the predicted radioactive releases due to normal operation or postulated accident conditions. The plant response to previously evaluated accidents or external events is not adversely affected, nor does the change described create any new accident precursors.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the description of the construction of composite steel beam floors and roof in the auxiliary building. The proposed change does not change the design function, support, design, or operation of mechanical and fluid systems. The proposed change does not result in a new failure mechanism for the pertinent structures or new accident precursors. As a result, the design function of the structures is not adversely affected by the proposed change.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change is consistent with ACI 349 and AISC N690. The design and construction of the auxiliary building floors and roof remain in conformance with the requirements in ACI 349 and AISC N690.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    Acting NRC Branch Chief: John McKirgan.

    III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Arizona Public Service Company, et al., Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Maricopa County, Arizona

    Date of amendment request: February 27, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated January 19, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised Technical Specification (TS) 1.3, “Completion Times”; TS 3.7.5, “Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System”; TS 3.8.1, “AC [Alternating Current] Sources—Operating”; and TS 3.8.9, “Distribution Systems—Operating”; to remove the second Completion Times. The amendment also revised Example 1.3-3 in TS 1.3, “Completion Times,” by adding a discussion of administrative controls to combinations of conditions to ensure that the Completion Times for those conditions are not inappropriately extended.

    The changes are consistent with the NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-439-A, Revision 2, “Eliminate Second Completion Times Limiting Time From Discovery of Failure to Meet an LCO [Limiting Condition of Operation],” dated June 20, 2005.

    Date of issuance: February 19, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 90 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—197; Unit 2—197; Unit 3—197. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16004A013; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74: The amendments revised the Operating Licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: May 12, 2015 (80 FR 27195). The supplement dated January 19, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 19, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: February 19, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated November 5, 2015.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments revised (1) technical specifications (TSs) by replacing AREVA Topical Report ANP-10298PA, “ACE/ATRIUM 10XM Critical Power Correlation,” Revision 0, March 2010, with Revision 1, March 2014, of the same topical report; and (2) Appendix B, “Additional Conditions,” by removing the license condition issued by Amendment Nos. 262 and 290 for Units 1 and Unit 2, respectively.

    Date of issuance: February 9, 2016.

    Effective date: Once approved, the Unit 1 amendment shall be implemented prior to start-up. from the 2016 Unit 1 refueling outage, and the Unit 2 amendment shall be implemented prior to start-up from the 2017 Unit 2 refueling outage.

    Amendment Nos.: 269 and 297. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16019A029; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation (SE) enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71, and DPR-62: Amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23603). The supplemental letter dated November 5, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in an SE dated February 9, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Energy Northwest, Docket No. 50-397, Columbia Generating Station (CGS), Benton County, Washington

    Date of amendment request: September 2, 2015.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specification (TS) requirements for unavailable barriers by adding Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.9. The LCO allows a delay time for entering a supported system TS, when the inoperability is solely due to an unavailable barrier, if the risk is assessed and managed. The change is consistent with NRC-approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification (STS) Change TSTF-427, Revision 2, “Allowance for Non Technical Specification Barrier Degradation on Supported System OPERABILITY” (ADAMS Accession No. ML061240055). The availability of this TS improvement was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2006 (71 FR 58444), as part of the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process.

    Additionally, LCO 3.0.8 has been revised to replace the term “train” with “division” to be consistent with CGS's TS definition of “OPERABLE-OPERABILITY” and the terminology used in Section 1.3, “Completion Times,” of the CGS TS.

    Date of issuance: February 16, 2016.

    Effective date: As of its date of issuance and shall be implemented within 60 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 237. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16020A031; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-21: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 27, 2015 (80 FR 65811).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 16, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1 and 2, Pope County, Arkansas

    Date of amendment request: May 20, 2015.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the full implementation date (Milestone 8) of the ANO, Units 1 and 2, Cyber Security Plan, and revised the associated physical protection license conditions for each renewed facility operating license.

    Date of issuance: February 24, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—255; Unit 2—303. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16027A109; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6: The amendments revised the renewed facility operating licenses.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register: June 23, 2015 (80 FR 35982).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-247, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2, Westchester County, New York

    Date of amendment request: December 9, 2014, as supplemented by two letters dated May 20, 2015, and letters dated June 8, 2015, and June 29, 2015.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.14, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” to extend the frequency of the containment integrated leak rate test from once every 10 years to once every 15 years on a permanent basis.

    Date of issuance: February 23, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 283. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15349A794; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Operating License No. DPR-26: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13905). The supplemental letters dated May 20, 2015; June 8, 2015; and June 29, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: Yes. The comments submitted by the State of New York on November 20, 2015, are addressed in the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation dated February 23, 2016.

    Entergy Operations, Inc.; System Energy Resources, Inc.; South Mississippi Electric Power Association; and Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Docket No. 50-416, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), Claiborne County, Mississippi

    Date of amendment request: May 27, 2015, as supplemented by letters dated October 28, 2015, and December 10, 2015.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the GGNS Technical Specifications (TSs) to allow for a permanent extension of the Type C leakage rate testing frequency and reduction of the Type B and Type C grace intervals that are required by GGNS TS 5.5.12, “10 CFR part 50, appendix J, Testing Program,” by including a reference to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report, NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J,” dated July 2012. In addition, the amendment changed Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.5.1.1 by deleting the information regarding the performance of the last Type A test that has already occurred. This amendment does not alter the Type A testing frequencies nor any other requirements as specified in the existing GGNS TS.

    Date of issuance: February 17, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No: 209. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16011A247; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Operating License No. NPF-29: The amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : September 29, 2015 (80 FR 58516). The supplemental letters dated October 28, 2015, and December 10, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 17, 2016.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, Lake County, Ohio

    Date of amendment request: March 25, 2014, as supplemented by letters dated October 7, 2014, and August 24, 2015.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies the Technical Specifications (TSs) by relocating certain surveillance frequencies to a licensee-controlled program, the Surveillance Frequency Control Program, using probabilistic risk guidelines contained in NRC-approved Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 04-10, Revision 1, “Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies.” The changes are consistent with the approved Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-425, Revision 3, “Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-RITSTF Initiative 5b.”

    Date of issuance: February 23, 2016.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 171. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15307A349; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Operating License No. NPF-58: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License and TSs.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55512). The supplemental letters dated October 7, 2014, and August 24, 2015, provided additional information that clarified the application,