Federal Register Vol. 81, No.59,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 59 (March 28, 2016)

Page Range17059-17359
FR Document

81_FR_59
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 17200 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 17091 - Threatened and Endangered Marine and Anadromous SpeciesPDF
81 FR 17207 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 17059 - Honoring the Victims of the Attack in Brussels, BelgiumPDF
81 FR 17225 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 17083 - Tax Treatment of Cafeteria PlansPDF
81 FR 17065 - Rules of PracticePDF
81 FR 17197 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 17121 - Department of State Acquisition RegulationPDF
81 FR 17180 - Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
81 FR 17235 - Missouri Disaster Number MO-00079PDF
81 FR 17181 - American Indians Into Nursing; Nursing ProgramPDF
81 FR 17234 - Texas Disaster #TX-00465PDF
81 FR 17146 - Multistakeholder Process To Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research DisclosurePDF
81 FR 17196 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 17198 - Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of MinnesotaPDF
81 FR 17191 - Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Investigating Factors That Influence Career Choice Among Neuroscience Trainees (NINDS)PDF
81 FR 17146 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17237 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 17094 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2016 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish; January Through June SeasonPDF
81 FR 17125 - Review of Commodity, Boxcar, and Trailer-on-Flatcar/Container-on-Flatcar (TOFC/COFC) ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 17237 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 17235 - Determination and Certification Under Section 490(b)(l)(A) of the Foreign Assistance Act Relating to the Largest Exporting and Importing Countries of Certain Precursor ChemicalsPDF
81 FR 17242 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
81 FR 17244 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 990-TPDF
81 FR 17240 - Hours of Service of Drivers: American Trucking Associations (ATA); Denial of Application for ExemptionPDF
81 FR 17244 - Art Advisory Panel-Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 17243 - Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Cybersecurity Assessment Tool Working Session in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework WorkshopPDF
81 FR 17084 - Mandipropamid; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 17209 - U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Multiple LocationsPDF
81 FR 17209 - Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage InstallationPDF
81 FR 17208 - TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 TestingPDF
81 FR 17193 - Tuna-Tariff Rate Quota; the Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar Year 2016 Tuna Classifiable Under Subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)PDF
81 FR 17143 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous FishPDF
81 FR 17093 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2016 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South AtlanticPDF
81 FR 17205 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 17147 - Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem RatesPDF
81 FR 17199 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 17133 - National Organic Program: Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 17135 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17141 - Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal AuthorityPDF
81 FR 17245 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 13614-CPDF
81 FR 17235 - Trade Preferences for Nepal: Request for Public Comments on Review of Nepal's Country EligibilityPDF
81 FR 17206 - Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study and Section 1201 Study: Announcement of Public RoundtablesPDF
81 FR 17134 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17207 - Distribution of the 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Cable Royalty FundsPDF
81 FR 17167 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17141 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 17198 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Mining and Mining Claims and Non-Federal Oil and Gas RightsPDF
81 FR 17163 - Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects and Colorado River Storage Project 2025 General Power Marketing Criteria-Extension of Public Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 17096 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2016 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal ApportionmentsPDF
81 FR 17168 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17163 - Notice of Public Meeting To Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal FacilitiesPDF
81 FR 17161 - Cheniere Marketing, LLC; Application for Blanket Authorization To Export Previously Imported Liquefied Natural Gas on a Short-Term BasisPDF
81 FR 17162 - Agency Information Collection ExtensionPDF
81 FR 17120 - Security Zone, Escorted Vessels; Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 17083 - Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks, Lake MichiganPDF
81 FR 17094 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason AdjustmentsPDF
81 FR 17164 - Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank)PDF
81 FR 17210 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 17195 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance”PDF
81 FR 17139 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17137 - Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTFAC)PDF
81 FR 17205 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection: ViCAP Case Submission FormPDF
81 FR 17164 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 17144 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 17139 - Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 17137 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 2014 PanelPDF
81 FR 17143 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 17145 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 17245 - Proposed Information Collection (Request for Details of Expenses, VA Form 21P-8049); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17246 - Proposed Information Collection (Monthly Certification of Flight Training VA Form 22-6553c); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 17161 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Campus Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) SurveyPDF
81 FR 17169 - Seventh Annual Predictive Safety Testing Consortium/Food and Drug Administration Scientific Workshop; Public WorkshopPDF
81 FR 17170 - Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Diagnosis of Zika Virus Infection; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 17124 - Removal of Outdated and Duplicative Guidance (2016-N010)PDF
81 FR 17065 - Investigational New Drug Applications for Biological Products; Bioequivalence Regulations; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 17165 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 17166 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 17195 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 17164 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and QualityPDF
81 FR 17234 - Plexus Fund QP III, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
81 FR 17234 - Plexus Fund III, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
81 FR 17200 - Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective OrdersPDF
81 FR 17190 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 17189 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 17191 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 17192 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 17188 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 17189 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 17192 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study (NCI)PDF
81 FR 17211 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Eaton Vance Global Income Builder NextShares of the Eaton Vance ETMF TrustPDF
81 FR 17213 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Exchange Rule 11.27 to Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 17219 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Exchange Rule 11.27 To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 17225 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Adopt Exchange Rule 11.27 To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 17231 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to the Voluntary Termination by Offset and Re-Matching of Matched-Book Positions in the Stock Loan/Hedge ProgramPDF
81 FR 17159 - TRICARE Bundled Payment for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement or Reattachment (LEJR) Surgeries Based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) ModelPDF
81 FR 17136 - Forest Resource Coordinating CommitteePDF
81 FR 17136 - Mitigation of Adverse ImpactsPDF
81 FR 17193 - National Protection and Programs Directorate; National Protection and Programs Directorate Seeks Comments on Cyber Incident Data Repository White PapersPDF
81 FR 17118 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Charlottesville, VAPDF
81 FR 17111 - Proposed Revocation of Class D Airspace; North, SCPDF
81 FR 17114 - Proposed Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Brookshire, TXPDF
81 FR 17116 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Roswell, NMPDF
81 FR 17061 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Minot, NDPDF
81 FR 17113 - Proposed Amendment of Class C Airspace; Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NYPDF
81 FR 17107 - Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 17088 - Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive AuctionsPDF
81 FR 17062 - Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On ChairsPDF
81 FR 17301 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting RegulationsPDF
81 FR 17337 - Elimination of Trichinae Control Regulations and Consolidation of Thermally Processed, Commercially Sterile RegulationsPDF
81 FR 17109 - Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series EnginePDF
81 FR 17066 - Limitations on the Importation of Net Built-In LossesPDF
81 FR 17247 - Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other RequirementsPDF
81 FR 17098 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

81 59 Monday, March 28, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality, 17164-17165 2016-06882 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Organic Program, 17133-17134 2016-06930 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17146-17147 2016-06959 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Survey of Income and Program Participation 2014 Panel, 17137-17139 2016-06895 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17165-17167 2016-06884 2016-06885 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17167-17168 2016-06922 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 2015 RECS LIHEAP Administrative Data Matching, 17168-17169 2016-06915 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks, Lake Michigan, 17083-17084 2016-06910 PROPOSED RULES Security Zones: Escorted Vessels Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone, 17120-17121 2016-06911 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17139 2016-06903
Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission RULES Rules of Practice; CFR Correction, 17065 2016-07017 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Cybersecurity Assessment Tool Working Session, etc., 17243-17244 2016-06949 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission RULES Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On Chairs, 17062-17065 2016-06769 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Meetings: Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study and Section 1201 Study; Public Roundtable, 17206-17207 2016-06925 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Distribution of the 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Cable Royalty Funds, 17207 2016-06923 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates, 17147-17159 2016-06937 TRICARE Bundled Payment: Lower Extremity Joint Replacement or Reattachment Surgeries Based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model, 17159-17161 2016-06859 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Campus Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act Survey, 17161 2016-06890 Energy Department Energy Department See

Western Area Power Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17162-17163 2016-06912 Application to Export Previously Imported Liquefied Natural Gas: Cheniere Marketing, LLC, 17161-17162 2016-06913 Meetings: Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities, 17163 2016-06914
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Mandipropamid, 17084-17088 2016-06948 Revisions to Ambient Monitoring Quality Assurance and Other Requirements, 17248-17299 2016-06226 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee, 17164 2016-06907 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D and Class E Airspace; Amendmants: Minot, ND, 17061 2016-06835 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes, 17107-17109 2016-06818 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 17098-17106 2016-04966 Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH and Co. KG 912 A Series Engine, 17109-17111 2016-06279 Amendment of Class C Airspace: Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY, 17113-17114 2016-06833 Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace: Charlottesville, VA, 17118-17119 2016-06845 Amendments to Class D and E Airspace; Revocation of Class E Airspace: Roswell, NM, 17116-17118 2016-06836 Establishment of Class D and E Airspace: Brookshire, TX, 17114-17116 2016-06839 Revocation of Class D Airspace: North, SC, 17111-17113 2016-06842 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 17088-17091 2016-06814 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17237 2016-06958 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Applications for Exemptions; Commercial Driver's License Standards: Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler), 17242-17243 2016-06953 Applications for Exemptions; Hours of Service of Drivers: American Trucking Associations, 17240-17241 2016-06951 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 17237-17240 2016-06955 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 17164 2016-06899 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Final Regulatory Framework, 17302-17335 2016-06601 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Investigational New Drug Applications: Biological Products; Bioequivalence Regulations, 17065-17066 2016-06886 NOTICES Authorizations of Emergency Use: In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Diagnosis of Zika Virus Infection, 17170-17180 2016-06888 Meetings: Seventh Annual Predictive Safety Testing Consortium/Food and Drug Administration Scientific Workshop, 17169 2016-06889 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17134-17135 2016-06924 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service PROPOSED RULES Elimination of Trichinae Control Regulations and Consolidation of Thermally Processed, Commercially Sterile Regulations, 17338-17359 2016-06576 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 17135-17136 2016-06929 Meetings: Forest Resource Coordinating Committee, 17136 2016-06858 Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee, 17137 2016-06902 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts, 17136-17137 2016-06857 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority, 17180-17181 2016-06971 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES National Protection and Programs Directorate Seeks Comments on Cyber Incident Data Repository White Papers, 17193-17194 2016-06856
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties, etc., 17195-17196 2016-06904 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota, 2016-06963 2016-06964 17196-17198 2016-06965 2016-06974 2016-06976 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Availability: American Indians Into Nursing, Nursing Program, 17181-17188 2016-06969 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Limitations on the Importation of Net Built-In Losses, 17066-17083 2016-06227 Tax Treatment of Cafeteria Plans; CFR Correction, 17083 2016-07018 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-06927 17244-17245 2016-06952 Meetings: Art Advisory Panel, 17244 2016-06950 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17200 2016-07075 Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective Orders, 17200-17205 2016-06875 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee, 17205 2016-06941 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ViCAP Case Submission Form, 17205-17206 2016-06900 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

See

Copyright Royalty Board

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PROPOSED RULES Removal of Outdated and Duplicative Guidance, 17124-17125 2016-06887 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Investigating Factors that Influence Career Choice among Neuroscience Trainees, 17191 2016-06961 U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study, 17192-17193 2016-06867 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 17189-17190 2016-06868 National Human Genome Research Institute, 17188-17189 2016-06869 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 17191-17192 2016-06871 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 17189 2016-06872 National Institute of Mental Health, 17190 2016-06873 National Institute on Aging, 17192 2016-06870 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 17093 2016-06942 South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish; January through June Season; Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure, 17094 2016-06957 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Inseason Adjustment to the 2016 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments, 17096-17097 2016-06916 Fisheries off West Coast States: Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments, 17094-17096 2016-06908 Threatened and Endangered Marine and Anadromous Species; CFR Correction, 17091-17093 2016-07044 NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Takes of Anadromous Fish, 17143-17144 2016-06943 Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority, 17141-17143 2016-06928 Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 17145-17146 2016-06893 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 17141 2016-06921 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 17144-17145 2016-06898 New England Fishery Management Council, 17143 2016-06894 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 17139-17141 2016-06897 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mining and Mining Claims and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights, 17198-17199 2016-06918 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 17199-17200 2016-06931 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Multistakeholder Process to Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure, 17146 2016-06966 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: TS Inservice Testing Program Removal and Clarify SR Usage Rule Application, 17208 2016-06945 License Amendment Applications: Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, 17209-17210 2016-06946 U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Multiple Locations, 17209 2016-06947 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17207-17208 2016-07042 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Honoring the Victims of the Attack in Brussels, Belgium (Proc. 9408), 17059 2016-07030 Presidio Presidio Trust NOTICES Meetings: Presidio Trust Board of Directors, 17210 2016-06905 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 17225 2016-07021 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., 17213-17219 2016-06865 Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGA Exchange, Inc., 17219-17225 2016-06864 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a EDGX Exchange, Inc., 17225-17231 2016-06863 The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 17211-17213 2016-06866 The Options Clearing Corp., 17231-17234 2016-06862 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Conflict of Interest Exemptions: Plexus Fund III, LP, 17234 2016-06878 Plexus Fund QP III, LP, 17234 2016-06879 Disaster Declarations: Missouri; Amendment 1, 17235 2016-06970 Texas, 17234-17235 2016-06968 State Department State Department PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulations, 17121-17123 2016-06973 NOTICES Determinations Under the Foreign Assistance Act Relating to Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine, 17235 2016-06954 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Review of Commodity, Boxcar, and Trailer-on-Flatcar/Container-on-Flatcar Exemptions, 17125-17132 2016-06956 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Trade Preferences for Nepal; Request for Public Comments on Review of Nepal's Country Eligibility, 17235-17236 2016-06926 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Employment Eligibility Verification, 17195 2016-06883 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar Year 2016, 17193 2016-06944 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Monthly Certification of Flight Training, 17246 2016-06891 Request for Details of Expenses, 17245-17246 2016-06892 Western Western Area Power Administration NOTICES Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects and Colorado River Storage Project 2025 General Power Marketing Criteria, 17163-17164 2016-06917 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Environmental Protection Agency, 17248-17299 2016-06226 Part III Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 17302-17335 2016-06601 Part IV Agriculture Department, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 17338-17359 2016-06576 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 59 Monday, March 28, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7485; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-25] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Minot, ND AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action further corrects a final rule published in the Federal Register of February 4, 2016, and corrected in the Federal Register of March 3, 2016, amending the Class D and E airspace areas at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND. This correction adds part-time Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) language inadvertently removed to the Class E surface area description, and removes duplicative Class E extension airspace boundary information language from the Class E surface area description.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, March 31, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

On February 4, 2016, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Class E surface area and Class E extension airspace areas at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND (81 FR 5903) Docket No. FAA-2015-7485. A final rule correction was published in the Federal Register to include Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from the surface (81 FR 11103, March 3, 2016). Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description was inadvertently removed in error, and the Class E extension airspace boundary information that is contained in the Class E surface area description should be removed. Potential safety concerns were identified due to the possibility for confusion in determining the operating rules and equipment requirements in the Minot International Airport terminal area. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to be active at the same time, as well as having the same Class E extension airspace boundary information published in both the Class E surface area and the Class E extension airspace descriptions.

To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area airspace at Minot International Airport, and removing the Class E extension airspace boundary information from the Class E surface area description. The regulatory text is rewritten for clarity. These are administrative corrections and do not affect the controlled airspace boundaries or operating requirements supporting operations in the Minot International Airport terminal area.

Correction to Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of February 4, 2016 (81 FR 5903) FR Doc. 2016-02036, and corrected in the Federal Register of March 3, 2016 (81 FR 11103) FR Doc. No. 2016-04482, Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, Minot, ND, is corrected as follows:
§ 71.1 [Amended] AGL ND E2 Minot, ND [Corrected]

On page 5904, column 3, beginning on line 29, remove the following text: “Within a 4.2-mile radius of Minot International Airport and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 129 ° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 260 ° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 327 ° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 miles each side of the Minot VORTAC 097 ° radial, extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7 miles east of the VORTAC, excluding the portion which overlies the Minot AFB, ND, Class D airspace area”; and add in its place the following text:

“Within a 4.2-mile radius of Minot International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airman. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.”

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 16, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-06835 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1233 [Docket No. CPSC-2015-0016] Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On Chairs AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission” or “CPSC”) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is issuing a safety standard for portable hook-on chairs (“hook-on chairs”) in response to the direction of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In addition, the Commission is amending its regulations regarding third party conformity assessment bodies to include the mandatory standard for hook-on chairs in the list of Notices of Requirements (“NOR”) issued by the Commission.

DATES:

This rule will become effective September 28, 2016. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keysha Walker, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6820; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Statutory Authority

The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “hook-on chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product.

On July 2, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) for hook-on chairs. 80 FR 38041. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM F1235-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs, without modification. In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory safety standard for hook-on chairs. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM process. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard, developed by ASTM International, ASTM F1235-15.

In addition, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for hook-on chairs. Under section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a NOR for the hook-on chair standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

II. Product Description

The scope section of ASTM F1235-15 defines a “portable hook-on chair” as “[u]sually a legless seat constructed to locate the occupant at a table in such a position and elevation so that the surface of the table can be used as the feeding surface for the occupant . . . [s]upported solely by the table on which it is mounted.” The ASTM standard specifies the appropriate ages and weights for children using portable hook-on chairs as “between the ages of six months and three years and who weigh no more than 37 lb (16.8 kg) (95th percentile male at three years).” Typical hook-on chairs consist of fabric over a lightweight frame, with a device to mount the seat to a support surface, such as a table or counter. Some hook-on chairs fold for easy storage or transport, and some include a removable tray that can be used in conjunction with a table.

III. Market Description

CPSC staff has identified 10 firms supplying hook-on chairs to the U.S. market, typically priced at $40 to $80 each. These 10 firms specialize in the manufacture and/or distribution of durable nursery products and represent only a small segment of the juvenile products industry. Nine of the 10 known firms are domestic (including 3 manufacturers and 6 importers). The remaining firm is a foreign manufacturer. Hook-on chairs represent only a small proportion of each firm's overall product line; on average, each firm supplies one hook-on chair model to the U.S. market annually.

Staff expects that the hook-on chairs of nine of the 10 firms are compliant with ASTM F1235 because they are either: (1) Certified by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (“JPMA”) (three firms); or (2) the supplier claims compliance with the voluntary standard (six firms). It is unknown whether the hook-on chairs supplied by the remaining firm, a foreign manufacturer, comply with the ASTM voluntary standard.

IV. Incident Data

The preamble to the NPR summarized the hook-on chair incident data—covering the period between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2014—reported to the Commission. 80 FR 38041. In the NPR, CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis, identified 89 portable hook-on chair-related incidents reported to the CPSC that occurred during the covered time period, including 50 incidents involving injury, 38 non-injury incidents, and one fatality. Since the publication of the NPR, CPSC staff has received 11 new reports (seven nonfatal injuries and four incidents without injury) that were determined to involve portable hook-on chairs. The seven new injuries all involved children between the ages of 6 and 12 months. Among the 11 new incidents, no ages were reported outside the ASTM-recommended user range of 6 months to 3 years. The hazards identified in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns identified among the incidents present in the NPR briefing package.

V. Overview of ASTM F1235

The voluntary standard for hook-on chairs was first approved and published in 1989, as ASTM F1235-89, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard seven times since initial publication of the standard. The current version, ASTM F1235-15, was approved on May 1, 2015. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate ASTM F1235-15, which addresses the hazard patterns identified for hook-on chairs, without modification.

VI. Response to Comments

The Commission received two comments in response to the NPR. A summary of each comment and a response is provided below.

A. General Support of Standard Adoption

Comment: A comment from representatives of Kids In Danger, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union urged the Commission to adopt the proposed rule and agreed with staff's recommendations.

Response: The Commission is issuing a final rule that is identical to the NPR.

B. Hook-On Chair Injuries

Comment: The second commenter discussed infant fall data, head injuries, severed body parts, and installation considerations for hook-on chairs. In addition, the commenter questioned why “so many injuries, and even on[e] fatality” occurred before anyone took action to implement stringent standards. Additionally, the commenter opined that hook-on chairs never should have been released to the market, or that they should have been removed immediately after compromised attachment incidents surfaced. Lastly, the commenter opined that even if injuries and fatalities decrease after implementing this new rule, the chances are high that more infants will be killed.

Response: Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, including hook-on chairs (specifically identified by section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA). Furthermore, section 104 of the CPSIA lays out a broad timeline for promulgation of such durable infant and toddler product safety standards. These standards must be “substantially the same as” or more stringent than the relevant voluntary standard. Accordingly, through section 104 of the CPSIA, Congress has directed the Commission to promulgate safety standards relating to hook-on chairs rather than ban their use.

The current ASTM standard, ASTM F1235-15, incorporates numerous changes implemented after hazard patterns emerged under the previous version of the standard, ASTM F1235-08. For example, the one fatal incident involved an older hook-on chair that did not have a passive crotch restraint. Passive crotch restraints are used to prevent “submarining” deaths and are specified in other similar juvenile standards, such as the juvenile standard for high chairs. Had the hook-on chair involved in the fatal incident contained a passive crotch restraint, the death would not have occurred. In 2014, ASTM added a performance requirement for passive-crotch restraints to ASTM F1235. During the ensuing 7 years between adoption of ASTM F1235-08 and ASTM F1235-15, the hazard patterns identified in the NPR were all addressed, and corresponding requirements were incorporated into the 2015 version of the standard. The Commission is confident that these changes in the standard (including changes addressing scissoring/shearing, openings, and labeling/markings) will reduce injuries associated with hook-on chairs.

VII. Final Rule A. Final Rule for Part 1233 and Incorporation by Reference

Section 1233.2(a) of the final rule provides that hook-on chairs must comply with ASTM F1235-15.

The Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule the way that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F1235-15. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F1235-15 from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as discussed above. We note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read only” access to ASTM F1235-15 during the NPR's comment period.

ASTM F1235-15 contains requirements covering:

• Sharp points;

• Small parts;

• Lead in paint;

• Wood parts;

• Latching and locking mechanisms;

• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching (including during detachment from table support surface);

• Exposed coil springs;

• Openings;

• Labeling; and

• Protective components.

The standard additionally contains test methods that must be used to assess conformity with these requirements.

B. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include NOR for Hook-On Chairs Standard

The final rule amends part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(40) that lists 16 CFR part 1233, Safety Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs, as a children's products safety rule for which the Commission has issued an NOR. Section XIII of the preamble provides additional background information regarding certification of hook-on chairs and issuance of an NOR.

VIII. Effective Date

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for hook-on chairs and the corresponding changes to part 1112 regarding requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies will become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

Without evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance with a new standard, and a 6-month effective date is typical for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that JPMA typically allows for products in the JPMA certification program to transition to a new standard once that standard is published. The Commission proposed a 6-month effective date in the NPR and did not receive any comments regarding the effective date.

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act A. Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (“FRFA”) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Impact on Small Businesses

Approximately 10 firms currently market portable hook-on chairs in the United States, nine of which are domestic firms. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) guidelines, a manufacturer of hook-on chairs is small if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees.

In the NPR briefing package, the Commission certified that the proposed hook-on chair rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. That conclusion has not changed. All of the domestic hook-on chairs appear to conform to the current voluntary standard and are expected to continue to do so. Consequently, costs of compliance, if any, are expected to be negligible. Third party testing costs are expected to be small and economically insignificant (i.e., less than 1 percent of gross revenues for the affected firms). Furthermore, we received no comments questioning or challenging the certification that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

X. Environmental Considerations

The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” is categorically exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule falls within the categorical exemption.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F1235-15 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

OMB has assigned control number 3041-0170 to this information collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the information collection burden of this proposal.

XII. Preemption

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.

XIII. Amendment to 16 CFR Part 1112 To Include Notice of Requirements (NOR) for Hook-On Chair Standard

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted, third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hook-On Chairs, to be codified at 16 CFR part 1233, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third-Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third-party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the standard for hook-on chairs, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the standard for hook-on chairs in the list of other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.

Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for hook-on chairs would be required to meet the third-party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to Third-Party Conformity Assessment Bodies. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1233, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hook-on Chairs, included in its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

As required by the RFA, staff conducted a FRFA when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small test laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third-party testing services. The only test laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision. Moreover, a test laboratory would only choose to provide such services if it anticipated receiving revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the requirements.

Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the hook-on chairs standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the hook-on chair standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformity to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the hook-on chairs standard to their scope of accreditation. For these reasons, the Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the hook-on chairs standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects 16 CFR Part 1112

Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party conformity assessment body.

16 CFR Part 1233

Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, Toys.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.

2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding and reserving paragraph (b)(39) and adding paragraph (b)(40) to read as follows:
§ 1112.15 When can a third party conformity assessment body apply for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

(b) * * *

(40) 16 CFR part 1233, Safety Standard for Portable Hook-On Chairs.

3. Add part 1233 to read as follows: PART 1233-SAFETY STANDARD FOR PORTABLE HOOK-ON CHAIRS Sec. 1233.1 Scope. 1233.2 Requirements for portable hook-on chairs. Authority:

Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).

§ 1233.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for portable hook-on chairs.

§ 1233.2 Requirements for portable hook-on chairs.

Each portable hook-on chair must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F1235-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs, approved on May 1, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or 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/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.

Dated: March 22, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-06769 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 10 Rules of Practice CFR Correction

In Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 40, revised as of April 1, 2015, on page 386, in § 10.12, paragraph (a)(2)(v) is reinstated to read as follows:

§ 10.12 Service and filing of documents; form and execution.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(v) Service shall be complete at the time of personal service; upon deposit in the mail or with a similar commercial package delivery service of a properly addressed document for which all postage or delivery service fees have been paid; or upon transmission by fax or email. Where a party effects service by mail or similar package delivery service (but not by fax or email), the time within which the party being served may respond shall be extended by five (5) days. Service by fax or email shall be permitted at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, with the parties' consent. Signed documents that are served by email must be in PDF or other non-alterable form.

[FR Doc. 2016-07017 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 312 and 320 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0011] Investigational New Drug Applications for Biological Products; Bioequivalence Regulations; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is amending its regulations to update the address for applicants to submit investigational new drug applications (INDs) for biological products regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). FDA is also amending its regulations on the criteria and evidence to assess actual and potential bioequivalence problems (bioequivalence regulations) to correct a typographical error. FDA is taking this action to ensure accuracy and clarity in the Agency's regulations.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Florine Purdie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FDA is amending 21 CFR 312.140(a)(2) to update the address for applicants to submit INDs for biological products regulated by CDER. FDA is amending 21 CFR 320.33(f)(3) of its bioequivalence regulations to correct a typographical error by removing the phrase “(first-class metabolism)” and adding in its place “(first-pass metabolism).”

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update the address for the submission of INDs regulated by CDER and to correct a typographical error in the Agency's bioequivalence regulations.

List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 312

Drugs, Exports, Imports, Investigations, Labeling, Medical research, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety.

21 CFR Part 320

Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 312 and 320 are amended as follows:

PART 312—INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG APPLICATION 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 312 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 360bbb, 371; 42 U.S.C. 262.

§ 312.140 [Amended]
2. Section 312.140 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by removing “CDER Therapeutic Biological Products” and adding in its place “Central”, and by removing “12229 Wilkins Ave., Rockville, MD 20852” and adding in its place “5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266”.
PART 320—BIOAVAILABILITY AND BIOEQUIVALENCE REQUIREMENTS 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 320 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, 371.

§ 320.33 [Amended]
4. Section 320.33 is amended in paragraph (f)(3) by removing “(first-class metabolism)” and adding in its place “(first-pass metabolism)”.
Dated: March 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-06886 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9759] RINs 1545-BF43; 1545-BC88 Limitations on the Importation of Net Built-In Losses AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Final regulations.

SUMMARY:

This document contains final regulations under sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The regulations apply to certain nonrecognition transfers of loss property to corporations that are subject to certain taxes under the Code. The regulations affect the corporations receiving such loss property. This document also amends final regulations under sections 332 and 351 to reflect certain statutory changes. The regulations affect certain corporations that transfer assets to, or receive assets from, their shareholders in exchange for the corporation's stock.

DATES:

Effective Date: These final regulations are effective on March 28, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John P. Stemwedel (202) 317-5363 or Theresa A. Abell (202) 317-7700 (not toll free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations revises a collection of information that has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-2019. The revised collection of information in these final regulations is in §§ 1.332-6, 1.351-3, and 1.368-3. By requiring that taxpayers separately report the fair market value and basis of property (including stock) described in section 362(e)(1)(B) and in 362(e)(2)(A) that is transferred in a tax-free transaction, this revised collection of information aids in identifying transactions within the scope of sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(e)(1), and 362(e)(2) and thereby facilitates the ability of the IRS to verify that taxpayers are complying with sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(e)(1), and 362(e)(2). The respondents will be corporations and their shareholders.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

Background

Sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) (the anti-loss importation provisions) were added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357, 188 Stat. 1418) to prevent erosion of the corporate tax base when a person (Transferor) transfers property to a corporation (Acquiring) and the result would be an importation of loss into the federal tax system. Proposed regulations under sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) were published in the Federal Register (78 FR 54971) on September 9, 2013 (the 2013 NPRM). Three written comments were submitted on the 2013 NPRM; no public hearing was requested or held. Additionally, on March 10, 2005, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (70 FR 11903-01) a notice of proposed rulemaking (the 2005 NPRM) that, among other things, proposed amendments to the regulations under sections 332 and 351 to reflect statutory changes. No comments were received with respect to the amendments reflecting statutory changes to section 332 and 351, although several comments were received with respect to other aspects of the 2005 NPRM. The 2005 NPRM's proposed amendments that reflect statutory changes are included in this final rule.

The comments with respect to the 2013 NPRM, and the respective responses of the Treasury Department and the IRS, are described in the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions that follows the Summary of the 2013 NPRM.

Summary of the 2013 NPRM 1. General Application of Sections and Interaction With Other Law

The 2013 NPRM provided specific rules to implement the statutory framework of the anti-loss importation provisions, such as rules for identifying “importation property” and for determining whether the transfer of that property occurs in a transaction subject to the anti-loss importation provisions (designated a “loss importation transaction” under the 2013 NPRM and these final regulations).

a. Importation Property

The 2013 NPRM used a hypothetical sale analysis to identify importation property. Under this approach, the actual tax treatment of any gain or loss that would be recognized on a sale of an individual property, first by the Transferor immediately before the transfer and then by Acquiring immediately after the transfer, determined whether that individual property was importation property. If a Transferor's gain or loss on a sale of an individual property immediately before the transfer would not be subject to any tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code (federal income tax), the first condition for classification as importation property would be satisfied. If Acquiring's gain or loss on a sale of the transferred property immediately after the transfer would be subject to federal income tax, the second condition for classification as importation property would be satisfied. If both of these conditions would be satisfied, the property would be importation property.

In general, this determination was made by reference to the tax treatment of the Transferor(s) or Acquiring as hypothetical sellers of the transferred or acquired property, that is, whether the hypothetical seller would take the gain or loss into account in determining its federal income tax liability. This determination had to take into account all relevant facts and circumstances. The 2013 NPRM included a number of examples illustrating this approach. Thus, in one example, a tax-exempt entity transferred property to a taxable domestic corporation, and the determination took into account whether the transferor, though generally tax-exempt, would nevertheless be required to include the amount of the gain or loss in unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under sections 511 through 514 of the Code. In other examples, a foreign corporation transferred property to a taxable domestic corporation and the determination took into account whether the foreign corporation would be required to include the amount of gain or loss under section 864 or 897 as income effectively connected with, or treated as effectively connected with, the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. Although the examples assumed that there was no applicable income tax treaty, in the case of an applicable income tax treaty, the determination of whether property is importation property would take into account whether the Transferor would be taxable under the business profits article or gains article of the income tax treaty.

i. Property Acquired From Grantor Trusts, Partnerships, and S Corporations

Although the general rule in the 2013 NPRM looked solely to the tax treatment of the Transferor(s) and Acquiring as hypothetical sellers, a look-through rule applied if a Transferor was a grantor trust, a partnership, or a small business corporation that elected under section 1362(a) to be an S corporation. In these cases, the determination of whether gain or loss from a hypothetical sale was subject to federal income tax was made by reference to the tax treatment of the gain or loss in the hands of the grantors, the partners, or the S corporation shareholders.

If an organizing instrument allocated gain or loss in different amounts, including by reason of a special allocation under a partnership agreement, the determination of whether gain or loss from a hypothetical sale by the entity was subject to federal income tax would be made by reference to the person to whom, under the terms of the instrument, the gain or loss on the entity's hypothetical sale would actually be allocated, taking into account the entity's net gain or loss actually recognized in the tax period in which the transaction occurred.

ii. Anti-Avoidance Rule for Certain Entities

In certain circumstances, the Code permits an entity that would otherwise be subject to federal income tax to shift the incidence of federal income taxation to the entity's owners. For example, under sections 651 and 652, and sections 661 and 662, distributions made by a trust are deducted from the trust's income for federal income tax purposes and included in the beneficiary's (or beneficiaries') gross income. Certain domestic corporations, including regulated investment companies (RICs, as defined in section 851(a)), real estate investment trusts (REITs, as defined in section 856(a)), and domestic corporations taxable as cooperatives (Cooperatives; see section 1381) are also able to shift the incidence of federal income taxation by distributing income or gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS were concerned that disregarding the ability of these entities to shift the incidence of federal income taxation could undermine the anti-loss importation provisions. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS were also concerned that applying a look-through rule in all of these cases would impose a significant administrative burden.

Accordingly, the 2013 NPRM included an anti-avoidance rule that applied to domestic trusts, estates, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives that directly or indirectly transferred property (including through other such entities) in a transaction described in section 362(a) or 362(b) (a Section 362 Transaction). The rule applied if the property had been directly or indirectly transferred to or acquired by the entity as part of a plan to avoid the application of the anti-loss importation provisions. When the look-through rule applied, the entity was presumed to distribute the proceeds of its hypothetical sale and the tax treatment of the gain or loss in the distributees' hands would determine whether the gain or loss was taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. If the distributee were also such an entity, the principles of this rule applied to look to the ultimate owners of the interests in the entity.

iii. Gain or Loss Affecting Certain Income Inclusions

Prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, questions were raised regarding the treatment of property transferred by or to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC), as defined in section 957 (taking into account section 953(c)). The general rules of the 2013 NPRM would not treat gain or loss recognized on a hypothetical sale by a CFC as subject to federal income tax; however, because practitioners raised concerns prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, the 2013 NPRM expressly provided that gain or loss recognized on a hypothetical sale by a CFC is not considered subject to federal income tax solely by reason of an income inclusion under section 951(a). The 2013 NPRM similarly provided that gain or loss recognized by a passive foreign investment company, as defined in section 1297(a), was not subject to federal income tax solely by reason of an inclusion under section 1293(a).

iv. Gain or Loss Taxed to More Than One Person

If gain or loss realized on a hypothetical sale would be includible in income by more than one person, the 2013 NPRM treated such property, solely for purposes of the anti-loss importation provisions, as tentatively divided into separate portions in proportion to the allocation of gain or loss from a hypothetical sale to each person. Tentatively divided portions were treated and analyzed in the same manner as any other property for purposes of applying the anti-loss importation provisions.

b. Loss Importation Transaction

Under the 2013 NPRM, once property had been identified as importation property, Acquiring would determine its basis in the importation property under generally applicable rules (disregarding sections 362(e)(1) and 362(e)(2)) and, if that aggregate basis exceeded the aggregate value of all importation property transferred in the Section 362 Transaction, the transaction was a loss importation transaction subject to the anti-loss importation provisions. If the aggregate basis of the importation property did not exceed such property's value, the anti-loss importation provisions had no further application.

i. Aggregate, Not Transferor-by-Transferor, Approach

By their terms, section 362(e)(1) and the provisions of the 2013 NPRM apply in the aggregate to all importation property acquired in a transaction, regardless of the number of transferors in the transaction. This rule differs from the transferor-by-transferor approach of section 362(e)(2), which is concerned with whether a transferor would otherwise duplicate loss by retaining loss in stock and transferring property with a net built-in loss.

ii. Valuing Partnership Interests

In response to concerns raised by practitioners prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, a special valuation rule for transfers of partnership interests was included in the 2013 NPRM. Under that rule, the value of a partnership interest would be determined in a manner that takes partnership liabilities into account. Specifically, the 2013 NPRM provided that the value of a partnership interest would be the sum of cash that Acquiring would receive for such interest, increased by any § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) of the partnership that were allocated to Acquiring with regard to such transferred interest under section 752. The 2013 NPRM included an example that illustrated the application and effect of this rule. The 2013 NPRM also clarified that any section 743(b) adjustment to be made as a result of the transaction was made after any section 362(e) basis adjustment.

c. Acquiring's Basis in Acquired Property

If a transaction was a loss importation transaction under the 2013 NPRM, Acquiring's basis in each importation property received (including the tentatively divided portions of property determined to be importation property) was an amount equal to the value of that property, notwithstanding the general rules in sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(a), and 362(b). This rule applied to all importation property, regardless of whether the property's value was more or less than its basis prior to the loss importation transaction.

Immediately following the application of the anti-loss importation provisions (and prior to any application of section 362(e)(2)), any property that was treated as tentatively divided for purposes of applying the anti-loss importation provisions ceased to be treated as divided and was treated as one undivided property (re-constituted property) with a basis equal to the sum of the bases of the portions determined under the anti-loss importation provision, and the bases of all other portions determined under generally applicable provisions (other than section 362(e)(2)).

If the transaction was described in section 362(a), the transferred property was then aggregated on a transferor-by-transferor basis to determine whether further adjustment would be required to the bases of loss properties under section 362(e)(2). The 2013 NPRM included a cross-reference to section 362(e)(2) as well as examples illustrating the application of both section 362(e)(1) and (e)(2) to situations involving multiple transferors and multiple properties that were not all importation properties.

2. Filing Requirements

To facilitate the administration of both the anti-loss importation provisions and the anti-duplication provisions in section 362(e)(2), the 2013 NPRM modified the reporting requirements applicable in all affected transactions (section 332 liquidations and transactions described in section 362(a) or section 362(b)) to require taxpayers to identify the bases and values of properties subject to those sections.

3. Modifications to Liquidation Regulations

The 2013 NPRM also included several modifications to the regulations applicable to corporate liquidations. These modifications were not substantive changes to the law; they were solely to update the regulations to reflect certain statutory changes, including the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine (reflected in the modification of sections 334(a) and 337(a), and the repeal of sections 333 and 334(c)), the removal of former section 334(b)(2) (replaced by section 338), and the relocation of former section 332(c) (subsidiary indebtedness) to current section 337(b). In response to certain regulatory changes, the 2013 NPRM also added several cross-references to regulations under section 367 and 897 to highlight the treatment of certain transfers between foreign corporations.

Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions

In general, the commenters agreed with the general framework prescribed in the 2013 NPRM and the positions taken therein by the Treasury Department and the IRS. Accordingly, the final regulations generally adopt the provisions of the 2013 NPRM. However, the final regulations also adopt certain modifications and include certain clarifications in response to comments. These comments, and the respective responses of the Treasury Department and the IRS, are described in the following paragraphs.

1. Comments Related to Partnership Matters

The majority of comments received in response to the 2013 NPRM related to issues involving partnerships.

a. Items Taken Into Account To Determine Treatment of Hypothetical Sale

As described previously, under the 2013 NPRM, the determination of whether gain or loss on property transferred by a partnership is subject to federal income tax would be made by reference to the treatment of the partners, taking into account all partnership items for the year of the Section 362 Transaction. One commenter suggested a closing-of-the-books rule instead, asserting such an approach would be more administrable for transferor partnerships. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that the allocation of partnership items as of the date of the transfer could differ from the allocation of such items at the end of the partnership tax year. In such a case, the partner to whom gain or loss on the hypothetical sale of the transferred property would be allocated as of the transfer date (using a hypothetical closing-of-the-books method) may not be the partner to whom the allocation would be made as of the end of the year, taking all items for the year into account. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the latter approach more accurately identifies the partner to whom the gain or loss on a sale of the property would be allocated, and thus more accurately determines whether such amounts would be subject to federal income tax. Accordingly, these final regulations do not permit using a closing-of-the-books method.

In response to questions about how to determine to which partner an item would be allocated, and thus its federal income tax treatment, the final regulations clarify that the partnership agreement as well as any applicable rules of law are taken into account.

b. Widely-Held Partnerships and Publicly Traded Partnerships

Another commenter requested that widely held partnerships (WHPs) and publicly traded partnerships (PTPs) not be subject to the look-through rule applicable to all partnerships for determining whether gain or loss on a hypothetical sale is subject to federal income tax. Instead, the commenter requested these entities be afforded treatment similar to that of domestic estates, trusts, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives (and therefore be subject to look-through treatment only in abusive situations). The commenter's reasons for this suggested modification included that look-through treatment would impose a substantial administrative burden on WHPs and PTPs and that these entities are not generally vehicles for abuse. However, the statute explicitly contemplates that partners, not partnerships, are the focus of the inquiry under section 362(e)(1). WHPs and PTPs are already required to apply a look-through approach to track and report information to their partners. For purposes of determining whether there is an importation of loss for PTPs, the Treasury Department and the IRS will respect determinations derived by applying generally accepted conventions in determining allocable income. See, for example, the conventions set forth in § 1.706-4(c)(3)(ii). Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to treat these partnerships as other than partnerships, and the final regulations retain the approach used in the 2013 NPRM.

c. Interactions of Sections 362(e) and 704(c)(1)(C)

Commenters also requested clarification of the interaction of the regulations proposed under section 362(e)(1), the regulations under section 362(e)(2), and regulations proposed under section 704(c)(1)(C) (79 FR 3041 (January 16, 2014)). The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that such clarification would be appropriate. However, the interaction of these provisions cannot be addressed independently of the promulgation of final regulations under section 704(c)(1)(C). Accordingly, these issues will be addressed as part of the finalization of regulations under that section.

d. Partnership Allocations in the Case of a Section 362(e)(2)(C) Election

The 2013 NPRM, like the final regulations under section 362(e)(2), included examples involving partnership transferors and allocation to partners of resulting adjustments under section 362(e)(1) and (2), including adjustments in the case of a section 362(e)(2)(C) election. The examples direct allocations to the partners that contributed the property transferred by the partnership in order to comply with the legislative purpose of section 362(e)(1) and (2) and to prevent distortions. Commenters agreed with the results provided in the examples but requested a clarification of the authority on which the analyses were based. The analysis reflected in the examples is based on general aggregate and entity principles of partnership tax law, taking into account the aggregate approach reflected in the statutory language of section 362(e)(1), and the purposes and principles of section 362(e)(1) and (2). The rule applying an aggregate approach to partnerships is set forth in § 1.362-3(d)(2) and is illustrated in Example 5 of § 1.362-3(f).

e. Rev. Rul. 84-111 and Rev. Rul. 99-6

One commenter requested that the final regulations clarify the effect of Rev. Rul. 84-111 (1984-30 IRB 6, 1984-2 CB 88) and Rev. Rul. 99-6 (1999-6 IRB 6, 1999-1 CB 432) on a transfer of all the interests in a partnership to a single transferee in a loss importation transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that guidance would be helpful in this area but have concluded that resolution of the complex issues implicated by those rulings is beyond the scope of this project. Accordingly, these final regulations do not address this issue.

2. Comments Related to Other Special Entities a. Anti-Avoidance Rule

As previously described, the 2013 NPRM would only subject domestic estates, trusts, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives to look-through treatment in certain abusive situations. One comment suggested that the anti-avoidance rule would be strengthened if the final regulations provided certain operating presumptions or factors to be applied in determining whether the rule would apply. The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered this suggestion but determined that the approach of the 2013 NPRM, focusing on the existence of a plan to avoid the anti-loss importation provisions, is appropriate and administrable. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

b. Foreign Non-Grantor Trusts

Another modification suggested by a commenter would allow a foreign non-grantor trust to prove that its beneficiaries were not foreign, in order to avoid treating gain or loss from its hypothetical sale as being treated as not subject to federal income tax. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered the suggestion and determined that such an approach is inconsistent with the anti-loss importation provisions and the general approach of the regulations because, subject to the anti-abuse rule, all non-grantor trusts, not their beneficiaries, are treated as transferors for purposes of the anti-loss importation provisions. In addition, adopting the commenter's suggestion would lead to inappropriate electivity with respect to the application of the anti-loss importation provisions because such an approach would depend on the identity of the foreign non-grantor trust's beneficiaries rather than a determination of whether the foreign non-grantor trust is subject to federal income tax. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

c. Trusts With No Distributable Net Income

Another commenter suggested that a domestic trust should be excepted from look-through treatment under the anti-abuse rule if it has no distributable net income within the meaning of section 643(a) in the taxable year of the transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered this suggestion and determined that it could lead to inappropriate electivity and abuse because the existence of distributable net income is not controlling in determining whether a transfer furthers a plan to avoid the anti-loss importation provisions. The existence of such a plan is controlling for determining that the transfer is subject to the anti-abuse rule. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

d. Tax-Exempt Transferors of Debt-Financed Property

Under the 2013 NPRM, if a tax-exempt entity transferred debt-financed property (as defined in section 514), the disposition of such property would be subject to federal income tax and thus the property could not be importation property. This rule applied even if there was only a de minimis amount of indebtedness and so only a small portion of any gain or loss would be subject to federal income tax. Commenters noted the cliff effect and resulting potential for avoidance of the anti-loss importation provisions. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree, and the final regulations adopt an approach that treats debt-financed property as subject to federal income tax in proportion to the amount of such gain or loss that would be includible in the transferor's UBTI on a sale under sections 511-514. The final regulations provide that portions of property determined under this rule are generally treated under the anti-loss importation provisions in the same manner as portions of property tentatively divided to reflect multiple owners of gain or loss on the property (for example, when a partnership transfers property to Acquiring).

3. Interaction With Regulations Under Section 367(b)

The proposed regulations requested comments on the appropriate treatment of transactions subject to section 367(b) and to either section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1). Comments were also specifically requested on what effect a basis reduction required under section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1) should have on earnings and profits and any inclusion required under § 1.367(b)-3. One comment suggested that if an inbound liquidation or inter-group asset reorganization gives rise to an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount under § 1.367(b)-3, the basis reduction under section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1), respectively, should be reduced to allow the transferee corporation to preserve an amount of built-in loss equal to the all earnings and profits amount. The comment suggested that this reduction is appropriate because the inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount is intended, in part, as a toll charge for importing basis into the U.S. tax system. However, the comment acknowledged that if such a rule was adopted, anti-abuse rules would be needed to address stuffing transactions and consideration should be given to adjusting the reduction for foreign tax credits associated with the inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the basis reduction should not be affected by an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount. First, there is no indication in section 334(b) or 362(e), or their legislative history, that the basis reduction should be reduced or otherwise affected by an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount. Second, such a reduction may be contrary to the policies underlying these provisions. For example, the built-in loss may have arisen before a domestic corporation acquires all the stock of a foreign corporation such that the built-in loss bears no relation to the all earnings and profits amount. Finally, determining the extent to which the built-in loss relates to the all earnings and profits amount would involve undue complexity. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Furthermore, the final regulations affirmatively state that the basis reduction does not affect the calculation of the all earnings and profits amount.

4. Transferred Basis Transaction

Commenters requested clarification of whether a transferee's basis in property continued to be considered determined by reference to its transferor's basis, notwithstanding the application of section 334(b)(1)(B) or section 362(e)(1). One comment specifically related to the application of regulations under section 755; other comments related to the treatment of the transaction more generally, including under sections 1223 (holding periods) and 7701(a)(4) (definition of transferred basis transaction). The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the application of the anti-loss importation provisions to section 332 liquidations or Section 362 Transactions should not be viewed as altering the fundamental nature of the transactions to which section 334(b), or section 362(a) or (b), apply. Similarly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the anti-duplication provisions in section 362(e)(2) and § 1.362-4 should not be viewed as altering the fundamental nature of the transactions to which they apply. Accordingly, the final regulations expressly provide that, notwithstanding the application of the anti-loss importation or anti-duplication provisions to a transaction, the transferee's basis is generally considered determined by reference to the transferor's basis for federal income tax purposes.

However, solely for purposes of determining the adjustment to the basis of partnership property under section 755 when a partnership interest is transferred in a loss importation transaction, the transferee's basis in the interest will be treated as not determined by reference to the transferor's basis. The reason for this exception under section 755 is that the treatment prescribed under § 1.755-1(b)(2) and (3) (generally applicable to non-substituted basis transactions and providing for basis increases to built-in gain property and basis decreases to built-in loss property) mirrors that prescribed under the anti-loss importation provisions. Accordingly, in order to align the adjustments to partnership property under § 1.755-1 with those made under the anti-loss importation provisions, the final regulations provide that, solely for purposes of applying section 755, a determination of basis under the anti-loss importation provisions is treated as not made by reference to the transferor's basis.

5. Applicability of Other Provisions for Determining Basis

A commenter noted that certain language in the 2013 NPRM could be read in a way that was not intended. The 2013 NPRM states the general rule that Acquiring's basis in importation property in a loss importation transaction is equal to the value of the property immediately after the transaction, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law[.]” The comment indicated that this language could be read to mean that, if the anti-loss importation provisions applied to a transaction, the transaction would not be subject to other provisions of law, such as section 482, that could further affect basis. Any such implication was wholly unintended and would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the final regulations clarify that other provisions of law do in fact continue to apply.

6. Miscellaneous

Immediately following the publication of the 2013 NPRM, a number of questions were raised regarding cross-references to the anti-loss importation and anti-duplication provisions that were proposed to be included in § 1.358-6 (basis in triangular reorganizations). Those cross-references were included solely to put taxpayers on notice that the anti-loss importation and anti-duplication provisions could modify the application of the triangular basis regulations to a transaction subject to those regulations. No substantive rule was intended or effected by the proposed cross-references. However, to clarify the purpose and scope of the cross-references, the final regulations do not include the individual cross-references included in the 2013 NPRM. Instead, the final regulations combine these multiple cross-references into one cross-reference that is included in the general statement of scope in § 1.358-6(a).

Commenters also noted a number of nonsubstantive corrections and clarifications that have been adopted.

Finally, commenters suggested a number of issues that could be the subject of further study, such as the effect of tax treaties, nonfunctional currency, and the application of section 7701(g) (clarification of fair market value in the case of non-recourse indebtedness). These issues are beyond the scope of this project and are therefore not addressed in these final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether further study of those issues should be undertaken.

In addition, nonsubstantive changes to conform nomenclature with that adopted in these final regulations, as well as to correct obvious errors and clarify cross-references, are made to final regulations under sections 362(e)(2), 705, and 1367 published under TD 9633.

Finally, these final regulations include modifications to §§ 1.332-2 and 1.351-1 that reflect certain statutory changes under sections 332 (relating to ownership of subsidiary stock) and 351 (relating to property permitted to be received by a transferor without recognition of gain or loss) proposed by the Treasury Department and the IRS in the 2005 NPRM (the statutory modifications). As no comments were received with respect to the statutory modifications, the statutory modifications are adopted as final regulations without change.

Effective/Applicability Date

The final regulations under sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) generally adopt the proposed effective date and thus are applicable to transactions occurring on or after March 28, 2016, unless completed pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016, and all times afterwards. The final regulations also apply to transactions occurring before March 28, 2016 resulting from entity classification elections made under § 301.7701-3 that are filed on or after March 28, 2016. In addition, the final regulations provide that taxpayers may apply these rules to any transaction occurring after October 22, 2004.

Special Analyses

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Further, it is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the collection of information requirement in these regulations modifies an existing collection of information by requiring that certain information be reported separately instead of in the aggregate. Although there should be an actual decrease in reporting burden, since taxpayers would no longer be required to aggregate the data they collect, any change is expected to be minimal. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business, and no comments were received.

Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is John P. Stemwedel of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 1.334-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(b).

Section 1.362-3 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 367(b).

Par. 2. Section 1.332-2 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 1.332-2 Requirements for nonrecognition of gain or loss.

(a) The nonrecognition of gain or loss under section 332 is limited to the receipt of property by a corporation that is the actual owner of stock (in the liquidating corporation) meeting the requirements of section 1504(a)(2). * * *

(f) Applicability date. The first sentence of paragraph (a) of this section applies to plans of complete liquidation adopted after March 28, 1985, except as specified in section 1804(e)(6)(B)(ii) and (iii) of Pubic Law 99-514.

Par. 3. Section 1.332-6 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1.332-6 Records to be kept and information to be filed with return.

(a) * * *

(3) The fair market value and basis of assets of the liquidating corporation that have been or will be transferred to any recipient corporation, aggregated as follows:

(i) Importation property distributed in a loss importation transaction, as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(2) and (3) (except that “section 332 liquidation” is substituted for “section 362 transaction”), respectively;

(ii) Property with respect to which gain or loss was recognized on the distribution;

(iii) Property not described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section;

(e) Effective/applicability date. * * * Paragraph (a)(3) of this section applies with respect to liquidations under section 332 occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to liquidations under section 332 occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such liquidation is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter.

Par. 4. Section 1.332-7 is amended by adding a sentence after the first sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:
§ 1.332-7 Indebtedness of subsidiary to parent.

* * * See section 337(b)(1). * * *

Par. 5. Section 1.334-1 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.334-1 Basis of property received in liquidations.

(a) In general. Section 334 sets forth rules for determining a distributee's basis in property received in a distribution in complete liquidation of a corporation. The general rule is set forth in section 334(a) and provides that, if property is received in a distribution in complete liquidation of a corporation and if gain or loss is recognized on the receipt of the property, then the distributee's basis in the property is the fair market value of the property at the time of the distribution. However, if property is received in a complete liquidation to which section 332 applies, including property received in satisfaction of an indebtedness described in section 337(b)(1), see section 334(b)(1) and paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Liquidations under section 332—(1) General rule. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(2) or (3) of this section, if a corporation (P) meeting the ownership requirements of section 332(b)(1) receives property from a subsidiary (S) in a complete liquidation to which section 332 applies (section 332 liquidation), including property received in a transfer in satisfaction of indebtedness that satisfies the requirements of section 337(b)(1), P's basis in the property received is the same as S's basis in the property immediately before the property was distributed. However, see § 1.460-4(k)(3)(iv)(B)(2) for rules relating to adjustments to the basis of certain contracts accounted for using a long-term contract method of accounting that are acquired in a section 332 liquidation.

(2) Basis in property with respect to which gain or loss was recognized. Except as otherwise provided in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and this subchapter of the Income Tax Regulations, if S recognizes gain or loss on the distribution of property to P in a section 332 liquidation, P's basis in that property is the fair market value of the property at the time of the distribution. Section 334(b)(1)(A) (certain tax-exempt distributions under section 337(b)(2)); see also, for example, § 1.367(e)-2(b)(3)(i).

(3) Basis in importation property received in loss importation transaction—(i) Purpose. The purpose of section 334(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b)(3) is to modify the application of this section to prevent P from importing a net built-in loss in a transaction described in section 332. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section for definitions of terms used in this paragraph (b)(3).

(ii) Determination of basis. Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if a section 332 liquidation is a loss importation transaction, P's basis in each importation property received from S in the liquidation is an amount that is equal to the value of the property. The basis of property received in a section 332 liquidation that is not importation property received in a loss importation transaction is determined under generally applicable basis rules without regard to whether the liquidation also involves the receipt of importation property in a loss importation transaction.

(iii) Operating rules—(A) In general. For purposes of section 334(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b)(3), the provisions of § 1.362-3 (basis of importation property received in a loss importation transaction) apply, adjusted as appropriate to apply to section 332 liquidations. Thus, when used in this paragraph (b)(3), the terms “importation property,” “loss importation transaction,” and “value” have the same meaning as in § 1.362-3(c)(2), (3), and (4), respectively, except that “the section 332(b)(1) distributee corporation” is substituted for “Acquiring” and “section 332 liquidation” is substituted for “section 362 transaction.” Similarly, when gain or loss on property would be owned or treated as owned by multiple persons, the provisions of § 1.362-3(d)(2) apply to tentatively divide the property in applying this section, substituting “section 332 liquidation” for “section 362 transaction” and making such other adjustments as necessary.

(B) Time for making determinations. For purposes of section 334(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b)(3)—

(1) P's basis in distributed property. P's basis in each property S distributes to P in the section 332 liquidation is determined immediately after S distributes each such property;

(2) Value of distributed property. The value of each property S distributes to P in the section 332 liquidation is determined immediately after S distributes the property;

(3) Importation property. The determination of whether each property distributed by S is importation property is made as of the time S distributes each such property;

(4) Loss importation transaction. The determination of whether a section 332 liquidation is a loss importation transaction is made immediately after S makes the final liquidating distribution to P.

(C) Effect of basis determination under this paragraph (b)(3)—(1) Determination by reference to transferor's basis. A determination of basis under section 334(b)(1)(B) and this paragraph (b)(3) is a determination by reference to the transferor's basis, including for purposes of sections 1223(2) and 7701(a)(43). However, solely for purposes of applying section 755, a determination of basis under this paragraph (b)(3) is treated as a determination not by reference to the transferor's basis.

(2) Not tax-exempt income or noncapital, nondeductible expense. The application of this paragraph (b)(3) does not give rise to an item treated as tax-exempt income under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(ii) or as a noncapital, nondeductible expense under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(iii).

(3) No effect on earnings and profits. Any determination of basis under this paragraph (b)(3) does not reduce or otherwise affect the calculation of the all earnings and profits amount provided in § 1.367(b)-2(d).

(iv) Examples. The examples in this paragraph (b)(3)(iv) illustrate the application of section 334(b)(1)(B) and the provisions of this paragraph (b)(3). Unless the facts indicate otherwise, the examples use the following nomenclature and assumptions: USP is a domestic corporation that has not elected to be an S corporation within the meaning of section 1361(a)(1); FC, CFC1, and CFC2 are controlled foreign corporations within the meaning of section 957(a), which are not engaged in a U.S. trade or business, have no U.S. real property interests, and have no other relationships, activities, or interests that would cause their property to be subject to any tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code (federal income tax); there is no applicable income tax treaty; and all persons and transactions are unrelated. All other relevant facts are set forth in the examples:

Example 1.

Basic application of this paragraph (b)(3). (i) Distribution of importation property in a loss importation transaction. (A) Facts. USP owns the sole outstanding share of FC stock. FC owns three assets, A1 (basis $40, value $50), A2 (basis $120, value $30), and A3 (basis $140, value $20). On Date 1, FC distributes A1, A2, and A3 to USP in a complete liquidation that qualifies under section 332.

(B) Importation property. Under § 1.362-3(d)(2), the fact that any gain or loss recognized by a CFC may affect an income inclusion under section 951(a) does not alone cause gain or loss recognized by the CFC to be treated as taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability for purposes of this section. Thus, if FC had sold either A1, A2, or A3 immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if USP had sold A1, A2, or A3 immediately after the transaction, USP would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability. Therefore, A1, A2, and A3 are all importation properties. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(C) Loss importation transaction. Immediately after the distribution, USP's aggregate basis in the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, would, but for section 334(b)(1)(B) and this section, be $300 ($40 + $120 + $140) and the properties' aggregate value would be $100 ($50 + $30 + $20). Therefore, the importation properties' aggregate basis would exceed their aggregate value and the distribution is a loss importation transaction. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(3).

(D) Basis of importation property distributed in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, were transferred in a loss importation transaction, the basis in each of the importation properties received is equal to its value immediately after FC distributes the property. Accordingly, USP's basis in A1 is $50; USP's basis in A2 is $30; and USP's basis in A3 is $20.

(ii) Distribution of both importation and non-importation property in a loss importation transaction. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 1 except that FC is engaged in a U.S. trade or business and A3 is used in that U.S. trade or business.

(B) Importation property. A1 and A2 are importation properties for the reasons set forth in paragraph (i)(B) of this Example 1. However, if FC had sold A3 immediately before the transaction, FC would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability. Therefore, A3 is not importation property. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(C) Loss importation transaction. Immediately after the distribution, USP's aggregate basis in the importation properties, A1 and A2, would, but for section 334(b)(1)(B) and this section, be $160 ($40 + $120). Further, the properties' aggregate value would be $80 ($50 + $30). Therefore, the importation properties' aggregate basis would exceed their aggregate value and the distribution is a loss importation transaction. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(3).

(D) Basis of importation property distributed in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1 and A2, were transferred in a loss importation transaction, the basis in each of the importation properties received is equal to its value immediately after FC distributes the property. Accordingly, USP's basis in A1 is $50 and USP's basis in A2 is $30.

(E) Basis of other property. Because A3 is not importation property distributed in a loss importation transaction, USP's basis in A3 is determined under generally applicable basis rules. Accordingly, USP's basis in A3 is $140, the adjusted basis that FC had in the property immediately before the distribution. See section 334(b)(1).

(iii) FC not wholly owned. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 1 except that USP owns only 80% of the sole outstanding class of FC stock and the remaining 20% is owned by individual X. Further, on Date 1 and pursuant to the plan of liquidation, FC distributes A1 and A2 to USP and A3 to X. A1 and A2 are importation properties, the distribution to USP is a loss importation transaction, and USP's bases in A1 and A2 are equal to their value ($50 and $30, respectively) for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (ii)(C) and (D) of this Example 1. Under section 334(a), X's basis in A3 is $20.

(iv) Importation property, no net built in loss. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 1 except that the value of A2 is $230.

(B) Importation property. A1, A2, and A3, are importation properties for the reasons set forth in paragraph (i)(B) of this Example 1.

(C) Loss importation transaction. Immediately after the distribution, USP's aggregate basis in the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, would, but for section 334(b)(1)(B) and this section, be $300 ($40 + $120 + $140). However, the properties' aggregate value would also be $300 ($50 + $230 + $20). Therefore, the importation properties' aggregate basis would not exceed their aggregate value and the distribution is not a loss importation transaction. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(3).

(D) Basis of importation property not distributed in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, were not distributed in a loss importation transaction, the basis of each of the importation properties is determined under the generally applicable basis rules. Accordingly, immediately after the distribution, USP's basis in A1 is $40, USP's basis in A2 is $120, and USP's basis in A3 is $140, the adjusted bases that FC had in the properties immediately before the distribution. See section 334(b)(1).

(v) CFC stock as importation property distributed in loss importation transaction. (A) Facts. USP owns the sole outstanding share of FC stock. FC owns the sole outstanding share of CFC1 stock (basis $80, value $100) and the sole outstanding share of CFC2 stock (basis $100, value $5). On Date 1, FC distributes its shares of CFC1 and CFC2 stock to USP in a complete liquidation that qualifies under section 332.

(B) Importation property. No special rule applies to the treatment of property that is the stock of a CFC. Thus, if FC had sold either the CFC1 share or the CFC2 share immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if USP had sold either the CFC1 share or the CFC2 share immediately after the transaction, USP would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability. Thus, the CFC1 share and the CFC2 share are importation property. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(C) Loss importation transaction. Immediately after the distribution, USP's aggregate basis in importation property (the CFC1 share and the CFC2 share) would, but for section 334(b)(1)(B) and this section, be $180 ($80 + $100) and the shares' aggregate value is $105 ($100 + $5). Therefore, the importation property's aggregate basis would exceed their aggregate value and the distribution is a loss importation transaction. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(3).

(D) Basis of importation property distributed in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property (the CFC1 share and the CFC2 share) was transferred in a loss importation transaction, USP's basis in each of the shares received is equal to its value immediately after FC distributes the shares. Accordingly, USP's basis in the CFC1 share is $100 and USP's basis in the CFC2 share is $5.

Example 2.

Multiple step liquidation. (i) Facts. USP owns the sole outstanding share of FC stock. On January 1 of year 1, FC adopts a plan of liquidation. FC makes the following distributions to USP in a transaction that qualifies as a complete liquidation under section 332. In year 1, FC distributes A1 and, immediately before the distribution, FC's basis in A1 is $100 and A1's value is $120. In Year 2, FC distributes A2, and, immediately before the distribution, FC's basis in A2 is $100 and A2's value is $120. In year 3, in its final liquidating distribution, FC distributes A3 and, immediately before the distribution, FC's basis in A3 is $100 and A3's value is $120. As of the time of the final distribution, USP had depreciated the bases of A1 and A2 to $90 and $95, respectively; the value of A1 had appreciated to $160; and, the value of A2 has declined to $0.

(ii) Importation property. If FC had sold either A1, A2, or A3 immediately before it was distributed, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if USP had sold either A1, A2, or A3 immediately after it was distributed, USP would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability. Therefore, A1, A2, and A3 are all importation properties. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(iii) Loss importation transaction. Immediately after it was distributed, USP's basis in each of the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, would, but for section 334(b)(1)(B) and this section, have been $100. Further, immediately after each such property was distributed, its value was $120. Thus, the properties' aggregate basis, $300, would not have exceeded the properties' aggregate value, $360. Accordingly, the distribution is not a loss importation transaction irrespective of the fact that, when the liquidation was completed, the properties' aggregate basis was $285 and the properties' aggregate value was $280. See paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B) of this section and § 1.362-3(c)(3).

(iv) Basis of importation property not distributed in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, were not distributed in a loss importation transaction, the basis of each of the importation properties is determined under the generally applicable basis rules. Accordingly, USP takes each of the properties with a basis of $100 and, immediately after the final distribution, has an adjusted basis of $90 in A1 (USP's $100 basis less the $10 depreciation), $95 in A2 (USP's $100 basis less the $5 depreciation), and $100 in A3. See section 334(b).

(c) Applicability date. This section applies with respect to liquidations occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to liquidations occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such liquidation is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter. In addition, taxpayers may apply this section to any section 332 liquidation occurring after October 22, 2004.

Par. 6. Section 1.337-1 is added to read as follows:
§ 1.337-1 Nonrecognition for property distributed to parent in complete liquidation of subsidiary.

(a) General rule. If sections 332(a) and 337 are applicable with respect to the receipt of a subsidiary`s property in complete liquidation, no gain or loss is recognized to the liquidating subsidiary with respect to such property (including property distributed with respect to indebtedness, see section 337(b)(1) and § 1.332-7), except as provided in section 337(b)(2) (distributions to certain tax-exempt distributees), section 367(e)(2) (distributions to foreign corporations), and section 897(d) (distributions of U.S. real property interests by foreign corporations).

(b) Aplicability date. This section applies to any taxable year beginning on or after March 28, 2016.

Par. 7. Section 1.351-1 is amended by: 1. Adding headings for paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) and revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text. 2. Adding a sentence after the fifth sentence in paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and removing the phrase “For purposes of this section” at the end of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and adding in its place the phrase “In addition, for purposes of this section”. 3. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii). 4. Removing the undesignated paragraph immediately following paragraph (a)(1)(ii). 5. Adding a heading for paragraph (a)(2). 6. Adding a heading for paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(1). 7. Adding a heading for paragraph (b)(2). 8. Adding paragraph (d).

The additions and revisions read as follows:

§ 1.351-1 Transfer to corporation controlled by transferor.

(a) In general—(1) Nonrecognition of gain or loss. Section 351(a) provides, in general, for the nonrecognition of gain or loss upon the transfer by one or more persons of property to a corporation solely in exchange for stock of such corporation if, immediately after the exchange, such person or persons are in control of the corporation to which the property was transferred. * * * For purposes of this section, stock rights and stock warrants are not included in the term stock. * * *

(i) Stock will not be treated as issued for property if it is issued for services rendered or to be rendered to or for the benefit of the issuing corporation; and

(ii) Stock will not be treated as issued for property if it is issued for property which is of relatively small value in comparison to the value of the stock already owned (or to be received for services) by the person who transferred such property and the primary purpose of the transfer is to qualify under this section the exchanges of property by other persons transferring property.

(2) Application. * * *

(b) Multiple transferors—(1) Disproportionate transfers. When property is transferred to a corporation by two or more persons in exchange for stock, as described in paragraph (a) of this section, and the stock received is disproportionate to the transferor's prior interest in such property, the entire transaction will be given tax effect in accordance with its true nature, and the transaction may be treated as if the stock had first been received in proportion and then some of such stock had been used to make gifts (section 2501 and following), to pay compensation (sections 61(a)(1) and 83(a)), or to satisfy obligations of the transferor of any kind.

(2) Application. * * *

(d) Applicability date. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of this section apply to transfers after October 2, 1989, for tax years ending after such date, except as specified in section 7203(c)(2) and (3) of Public Law 101-239.

Par. 8. Section 1.351-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3), and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 1.351-3 Records to be kept and information to be filed.

(a) * * *

(3) The fair market value and basis of the property transferred by such transferor in the exchange, determined immediately before the transfer and aggregated as follows:

(i) Importation property transferred in a loss importation transaction, as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(2) and (3), respectively;

(ii) Loss duplication property as defined in § 1.362-4(g)(1);

(iii) Property with respect to which any gain or loss was recognized on the transfer (without regard to whether such property is also identified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section); and

(iv) Property not described in paragraph (a)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.

(b) * * *

(3) The fair market value and basis of property received in the exchange, determined immediately before the transfer and aggregated as follows:

(i) Importation property transferred in a loss importation transaction, as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(2) and (3), respectively;

(ii) Loss duplication property as defined in § 1.362-4(g)(1);

(iii) Property with respect to which any gain or loss was recognized on the transfer (without regard to whether such property is also identified in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section);

(iv) Property not described in paragraph (b)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section; and

(f) Effective/applicability date. * * * Paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section apply with respect to exchanges under section 351 occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to exchanges under section 351 occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such exchange is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter.

Par. 9. Section 1.358-6 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (c)(4) introductory text, (e), and the first sentence of paragraph (f)(3), and adding paragraph (f)(4) to read as follows:
§ 1.358-6 Stock basis in certain triangular reorganizations.

(a) Scope. * * * See also sections 362(e)(1) and 362(e)(2) for further adjustments to basis that may be necessary under either or both of those sections.

(c) * * *

(4) Examples. The rules of this paragraph (c) are illustrated by the following examples. For purposes of these examples, P, S, and T are domestic corporations, the property transferred is not importation property within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(2) or loss duplication property within the meaning of § 1.362-4(g)(1), P and S do not file consolidated returns, P owns all of the shares of the only class of S stock, the P stock exchanged in the transaction satisfies the requirements of the applicable triangular reorganization provisions, and the facts set forth the only corporate activity.

(e) Cross-references—(1) Triangular reorganizations involving members of a consolidated group. For rules relating to stock basis adjustments made as a result of a triangular reorganization in which P and S, or P and T, as applicable, are, or become, members of a consolidated group, see § 1.1502-30. However, if a transaction is a group structure change, stock basis adjustments are determined under § 1.1502-31 and not under § 1.1502-30, even if the transaction also qualifies as a reorganization otherwise subject to § 1.1502-30.

(2) Triangular reorganizations involving certain foreign corporations. For rules relating to stock basis adjustments made as a result of triangular reorganizations involving certain foreign corporations, see §§ 1.367(b)-4(b), 1.367(b)-10, and 1.367(b)-13.

(f) * * *

(3) Triangular G reorganization and special rule for triangular reorganizations involving members of a consolidated group. Paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall apply to triangular reorganizations occurring on or after September 17, 2008. * * *

(4) Triangular reorganizations involving importation property acquired in loss importation transaction or loss duplication transaction; triangular reorganizations involving certain foreign corporations. Paragraphs (a) and (e)(2) of this section apply to triangular reorganizations occurring after October 22, 2004 unless effected to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to that date and at all times thereafter.

Par. 10. Section 1.362-3 is added to read as follows:
§ 1.362-3 Basis of importation property acquired in loss importation transaction.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of section 362(e)(1) and this section is to modify the application of section 362(a) (section 351 transfers, contributions to capital, or paid-in surplus) and section 362(b) (reorganizations) to prevent a corporation (Acquiring) from importing a net built-in loss in a transaction described in either section. See paragraph (c) of this section for definitions of terms used in this section.

(b) Basis determinations under this section—(1) Basis of importation property received in loss importation transaction. Notwithstanding the general rules of section 362(a) and (b), Acquiring's basis in importation property (as defined in paragraph (c)(2) of this section) acquired in a loss importation transaction (as defined in paragraph (c)(3) of this section) is equal to the value of the property immediately after the transaction.

(2) Adjustment to basis of subsidiary stock in triangular reorganizations. If a corporation (P) computes its basis in stock of a subsidiary (whether S or T) under § 1.358-6 (stock basis in certain triangular reorganizations), P's basis in property treated as acquired by P in § 1.358-6(c) is determined under section 362(e)(1) and this section to the extent such property, if actually acquired by P, would be importation property acquired in a loss importation transaction. See § 1.358-6(c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(B), and (c)(3)(i). The subsidiary's basis in the property actually acquired in the transaction is determined under applicable law (including this section), without regard to the amount of any adjustment to P's basis in the subsidiary's stock. Thus, the basis of the property in S's or T's hands may differ from the amount of the adjustment to P's basis in its stock of S or T.

(3) Acquiring's basis in other property transferred. In general, Acquiring's basis in property received in a section 362 transaction (as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that is not determined under section 362(e)(1) and this section is determined under section 362(a) or section 362(b). However, if the transaction is described in section 362(a) (without regard to whether it is also described in any other section), further adjustment may be required under section 362(e)(2). See § 1.362-4.

(4) Other effects of basis determination under this section—(i) Determination by reference to transferor's basis. A determination of basis under this section is a determination by reference to the transferor's basis, including for purposes of sections 1223(2) and 7701(a)(43). However, solely for purposes of applying section 755, a determination of basis under this section is treated as a determination not by reference to the transferor's basis.

(ii) Not tax-exempt income or noncapital, nondeductible expense. The application of this section does not give rise to an item treated as tax-exempt income under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(ii) or as a noncapital, nondeductible expense under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(iii).

(iii) No effect on earnings and profits. Any determination of basis under this section does not reduce or otherwise affect the calculation of the all earnings and profits amount provided in § 1.367(b)-2(d).

(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Section 362 transaction. The term section 362 transaction means any transaction described in section 362(a) or in section 362(b).

(2) Importation property—(i) General rule. The term importation property means any property (including separate portions determined under paragraph (d)(4) of this section and separate portions of property tentatively divided under paragraph (e)(2) of this section) with respect to which—

(A) Any gain or loss that would be recognized on its sale by the transferor immediately before the transaction (the transferor's hypothetical sale) would not be subject to tax imposed under any provision of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (federal income tax) (taking into account the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section); and

(B) Any gain or loss that would be recognized on its sale by Acquiring immediately after the transaction (Acquiring's hypothetical sale) would be subject to federal income tax (taking into account the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section).

(ii) Special rules for applying this paragraph (c)(2). See paragraph (d) of this section for rules for determining whether gain or loss on a hypothetical sale would be taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability and paragraph (e) of this section for rules applicable when more than one person would take such gain or loss into account.

(3) Loss importation transaction. The term loss importation transaction means any section 362 transaction in which Acquiring's aggregate basis in all importation property received from all transferors in the transaction would exceed the aggregate value of such property immediately after the transaction. For this purpose, Acquiring's basis in property received is determined without regard to this section or section 362(e)(2).

(4) Value—(i) General rule. The term value means fair market value.

(ii) Special rule for transfers of partnership interests. Notwithstanding the general rule in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section, when referring to a partnership interest, for purposes of this section, the term value means the sum of the cash that Acquiring would receive for the interest, assuming an exchange between a willing buyer and a willing seller (neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts), increased by any § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) of the partnership allocated to Acquiring with regard to such transferred interest under section 752 immediately after the transfer to Acquiring. If a partnership has elected under section 754, or if section 743(b) would require a downward basis adjustment to the partnership property, the partnership must apply the rules of § 1.743-1 to determine the amount of the basis adjustment to the partnership property.

(d) Rules for determining whether gain or loss would be taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability—(1) General rule. In general, any gain or loss that would be recognized on a hypothetical sale described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section is considered to be subject to federal income tax if, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, such gain or loss would affect or be taken into account in determining the federal income tax liability of the transferor or Acquiring, respectively. This determination is made without regard to whether such person has or would have any actual federal income tax liability for the taxable year of the transaction.

(2) Look-through rule in the case of certain pass-through entities. Notwithstanding the general rule in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the determination of whether any gain or loss on a hypothetical sale would be treated as subject to federal income tax is made by reference to the person that would be required to include such gain or loss in its taxable income if the hypothetical seller is—

(i) A trust treated as owned by its grantors or others (see section 671);

(ii) A partnership (see section 701); or

(iii) An S corporation (see sections 1363 and 1366).

(3) Controlled foreign corporation (CFC), passive foreign investment company (PFIC). For purposes of this section, gain or loss that would be recognized by a CFC (as defined in section 957(a)) or a PFIC (as defined in section 1297(a)) is not deemed taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability solely because it could affect an inclusion under section 951(a) or section 1293(a).

(4) Special rule for debt-financed property subject to section 512. If property is debt-financed property (as defined in section 514(b)) owned by an organization subject to the unrelated business income tax described in section 511(a)(2) and, as a result, a portion of any gain or loss on a sale of the property would be included in unrelated taxable business income (UBTI) under section 512, such property is treated as divided into separate portions in proportion to the amount of such gain or loss that would be includible in UBTI. The rules of paragraph (e) of this section apply to determine the characterization of such portions (as includible in the determination of a federal income tax liability or not), and the tax treatment and consequences of the transaction in which such portions are transferred.

(5) Look-through treatment in the case of certain avoidance transactions—(i) Application of this paragraph (d)(5). This paragraph (d)(5) applies if—

(A) The transferor is a domestic entity that is a trust (other than a trust described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section), estate, regulated investment company (as defined in section 851(a)), a real estate investment trust (as defined in section 856(a)), or a cooperative (as described in section 1381); and

(B) The transferor transfers, directly or indirectly, property that was transferred to or acquired by it as part of a plan (whether of transferor, Acquiring, or any other person) to avoid the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to a section 362 transaction.

(ii) Effect of application of this paragraph (d)(5). Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(1) of this section, if a transferor is described in both paragraphs (d)(5)(i)(A) and (B) of this section—

(A) The transferor is treated as though it distributes the proceeds of the hypothetical sale (which, for this purpose, are presumed to be an amount greater than zero);

(B) To the fullest extent possible under the transferor's organizing instrument, the deemed distribution is treated as made to a distributee or distributees that would not take distributions from the transferor into account in determining a federal income tax liability; and

(C) The determination of whether the gain or loss on the hypothetical sale is treated as subject to federal income tax is made by reference to the deemed distributee or distributees.

(iii) Tiered entities. If a deemed distributee is an entity described in paragraph (d)(5)(i)(A) of this section, the determination of whether gain or loss on the hypothetical sale is taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability is made by treating the deemed distributee, and any successive such deemed distributees, as a transferor and applying the rules in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section to its deemed distribution (and to all successive deemed distributions), until no deemed distributee or successive deemed distributee is an entity described in paragraph (d)(5)(i)(A) of this section.

(e) Special rules for gain or loss that would be taken into account by multiple persons—(1) In general. If gain or loss from a disposition of property would be includible in income by more than one person, the property is treated as tentatively divided into separate portions in proportion to the amount of gain or loss recognized with respect to the property that would be allocated to each such person. If an entity's organizing instrument specially allocates gain and loss, the tentative division of property under this paragraph (e) must reflect the manner in which gain or loss on the disposition of such property would be allocated under the terms of the organizing instrument and any applicable rules of law, taking into account the net gain or loss actually recognized by the entity in that tax year.

(2) Application of section. The rules of this section apply independently to each tentatively divided portion to determine if the portion is importation property. Each tentatively divided portion that is determined to be importation property is included with all other importation property in the determination of whether the transaction is a loss importation transaction.

(3) Acquiring's basis in property tentatively divided into separate portions. Immediately after the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section and before the application of section 362(e)(2), each property treated as tentatively divided into separate portions for purposes of applying section 362(e)(1) and this section ceases to be treated as tentatively divided and Acquiring has a single, undivided basis in such property that is equal to the sum of—

(i) The value of each tentatively divided portion that is importation property, if the transaction is a loss importation transaction; and

(ii) Acquiring's basis in each tentatively divided portion that is not importation property received in a loss importation transaction, as determined under section 362(a) or section 362(b), as applicable, and without regard to any potential application of section 362(e)(2).

(f) Examples. The examples in this paragraph (f) illustrate the application of section 362(e)(1) and the provisions of this section. Unless otherwise indicated, the examples use the following nomenclature and assumptions: A and B are U.S. citizens. DC, DC1, and P are domestic corporations that have not elected to be S corporations within the meaning of section 1361(a)(1) and that are not members of a consolidated group. F is a foreign individual. FP is a foreign partnership. FC, FC1, and FC2 are foreign corporations. Unless the facts indicate otherwise, the foreign individuals, corporations, and partnerships are not engaged in a U.S. trade or business, have no U.S. real property interests, and have no other relationships, activities, or interests that would cause them, their shareholders, their partners, or their property to be subject to federal income tax. There is no applicable income tax treaty, all persons' tax years are calendar years, and all persons and transactions are unrelated unless the facts indicate otherwise.

Example 1.

Basic application of section. (i) Section 351 transfer of importation property in a loss importation transaction. (A) Facts. FC owns three assets, A1 (basis $40, value $150), A2 (basis $120, value $30), and A3 (basis $140, value $20). On Date 1, FC transfers A1, A2, and A3 to DC in a transaction to which section 351 applies.

(B) Importation property. If FC had sold A1, A2, or A3 immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if DC had sold A1, A2, or A3 immediately after the transaction, DC would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability. Therefore, A1, A2, and A3 are all importation properties. See paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(C) Loss importation transaction. FC's transfer of A1, A2, and A3 is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, would be $300 ($40 + $120 + $140) under section 362(a) and the properties' aggregate value would be $200 ($150 + $30 + $20). Therefore, the importation properties' aggregate basis would exceed their aggregate value and the transaction is a loss importation transaction. See paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, were transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in A1, A2, and A3 will each be equal to the property's value ($150, $30, and $20, respectively) immediately after the transfer.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in the transferred properties would not exceed their aggregate value immediately after the transfer. Therefore, FC does not have a net built-in loss, FC's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to this transaction. DC's bases in A1, A2, and A3, as determined under paragraph (i)(D) of this Example 1, are $150, $30, and $20, respectively. Under section 358(a), FC receives the DC stock with a basis of $300 (the sum of FC's bases in A1, A2, and A3 immediately before the exchange).

(ii) Reorganization. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 1 except that, instead of transferring property to DC in a section 351 exchange, FC merges with and into DC in a transaction described in section 368(a)(1)(A). The analysis and results are the same as set forth in paragraphs (i)(B), (C), and (D) of this Example 1. However, the analysis in paragraph (i)(E) of this Example 1 does not apply to these facts because the transaction is not subject to 362(e)(2) and § 1.362-4. Under section 358(a), FC's shareholders will take the DC stock with a basis determined by reference to their FC stock basis.

(iii) FC's property used in U.S. trade or business. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 1, except that FC is engaged in a U.S. trade or business and uses all the properties in that U.S. trade or business. In this case, none of the properties would be importation property because FC would take any gain or loss on the disposition of the properties into account in determining its federal income tax liability. Accordingly, this section does not apply to the transaction.

(B) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in the transferred properties would be $300 ($40 + $120 + $140) under section 362(a) and the properties' aggregate value immediately after the transfer would be $200 ($150 + $30 + $20). Therefore, FC has a net built-in loss and FC's transfer of A1, A2, and A3 is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), FC's $100 net built-in loss ($300 aggregate basis over $200 aggregate value) would be allocated proportionately (by the amount of built-in loss in each property) to reduce DC's basis in the loss properties, A2 and A3. See § 1.362-4. As a result, DC's basis in A2 would be $77.14 ($120 basis under section 362(a) reduced by $42.86, A2's proportionate share of FC's net built-in loss, computed as $90/$210 × $100) and DC's basis in A3 would be $82.86 ($140 basis under section 362(a) reduced by $57.14, A3's proportionate share of FC's net built-in loss, computed as $120/$210 x $100). However, if FC and DC were to elect under section 362(e)(2)(C) to apply the $100 basis reduction to FC's basis in the DC stock received in the transaction, DC's bases in A2 and A3 would remain their section 362(a) bases of $120 and $140, respectively. Under section 362(a), DC's basis in A1 is $40 (irrespective of whether the section 362(e)(2)(C) election is made). If FC and DC do not make a section 362(e)(2)(C) election, FC's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $300; if FC and DC do make the election, FC's basis in the DC stock will be $200 ($300−$100 net built-in loss). See § 1.362-4(b).

Example 2.

Multiple transferors. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of Example 1 of this paragraph (f), except that FC only owns A1 (basis $40, value $150) and A2 (basis $120, value $30) and F owns A3 (basis $140, value $20). On Date 1, FC transfers A1 and A2, and F transfers A3, to DC in a single transaction described in section 351.

(ii) Importation property. A1 and A2 are importation properties for the reasons set forth in paragraph (i)(B) of Example 1 of this paragraph (f). A3 is also an importation property because, if F had sold A3 immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability, and, further, if DC had sold A3 immediately after the transaction, DC would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability.

(iii) Loss importation transaction. The transfers by FC and F are a section 362 transaction. The transaction is a loss importation transaction for the reasons set forth in paragraph (i)(C) of Example 1 of this paragraph (f) (notwithstanding that one of the transferors, FC, did not transfer a net built-in loss). See paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(iv) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1, A2, and A3, were transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in A1, A2, and A3 will each be equal to the property's value ($150, $30, and $20, respectively) immediately after the transfer.

(v) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. The application of section 362(e)(2) is determined separately for each transferor. See § 1.362-4(b). Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, neither DC's aggregate basis in FC's properties nor DC's basis in F's property would exceed the properties' respective values immediately after the transaction. Therefore neither FC nor F has a net built-in loss, neither transfer is a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to either transfer. DC's bases in A1, A2, and A3, as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 2, are $150, $30, and $20, respectively. Under section 358(a), FC's basis in the DC stock received is $160 ($40 + $120) and F's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange is $140.

Example 3.

Transfer of importation and non-importation property. (i) Facts. As in paragraph (i) of Example 2, FC owns A1 (basis $40, value $150) and A2 (basis $120, value $30), and F owns A3 (basis $140, value $20). In addition, A2 is a U.S. real property interest as defined in section 897(c)(1). On Date 1, FC transfers A1 and A2, and F transfers A3, to DC in a single transaction described in section 351.

(ii) Importation property. A1 and A3 are importation properties for the reasons set forth in paragraph (i)(B) of Example 1 and paragraph (ii) of Example 2 of this paragraph (f), respectively. However, A2 is not importation property because, if FC had sold A2 immediately before the transaction, FC would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability.

(iii) Loss importation transaction. FC's and F's transfer is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in the importation properties, A1 and A3, would be $180 ($40 + $140) and the properties' aggregate value would be $170 ($150 + $20) immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation properties' aggregate basis would exceed their aggregate value immediately after the transaction, and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(iv) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation properties, A1 and A3, were transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in A1 and in A3 will each be equal to the property's value ($150 and $20, respectively) immediately after the transfer.

(v) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. The application of section 362(e)(2) is determined separately for each transferor. See § 1.362-4(b).

(A) FC's transfer. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC would have an aggregate basis of $270 in the transferred properties ($150 in A1, as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 3, plus $120 in A2, determined under section 362(a)), and the properties would have an aggregate value of $180 ($150 + $30) immediately after the transfer. Therefore, FC has a net built-in loss and FC's transfer of A1 and A2 is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), FC's $90 net built-in loss ($270 aggregate basis to DC over $180 aggregate value) would be allocated proportionately to reduce DC's basis in the loss property transferred by FC. As a result, FC's entire net built-in loss would be allocated to A2, the only loss property transferred by FC, and DC's basis in A2 would be $30 ($120 basis under section 362(a) reduced by $90 net built-in loss). However, if FC and DC were to elect under section 362(e)(2)(C) to apply the $90 basis reduction to FC's basis in the DC stock received in the transaction, DC's basis in A2 would remain its section 362(a) basis of $120. DC's basis in A1 is $150 as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 3 (irrespective of whether the section 362(e)(2)(C) election is made). If FC and DC do not make a section 362(e)(2)(C) election, FC's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $160; if FC and DC do make the election, FC's basis in the DC stock will be $70 ($160−$90 net built-in loss). See § 1.362-4.

(B) F's transfer of A3. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in A3, the property transferred by F, would not exceed its value immediately after the transfer. Therefore, F does not have a built-in loss, F's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to F's transfer. DC's basis in A3, as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 3, is $20. Under section 358(a), F receives the DC stock with a basis of $140.

Example 4.

Multiple transferors of non-importation properties. (i) Facts. DC1 owns A1 (basis $40, value $150). In addition, as in Example 3 of this paragraph (f), FC owns A2 (basis $120, value $30), a U.S. real property interest as defined in section 897(c)(1), and F owns A3 (basis $140, value $20). On Date 1, DC1 transfers A1, FC transfers A2, and F transfers A3, to DC in a single transaction described in section 351.

(ii) Importation property. A2 is not importation property and A3 is importation property for the reasons set forth in paragraph (ii) of Example 3 and paragraph (i)(B) of Example 1 of this paragraph (f), respectively. A1 is not importation property because, if DC1 had sold A2 immediately before the transaction, DC1 would take into account any gain or loss recognized on the sale in determining its federal income tax liability.

(iii) Loss importation transaction. The transfer of A1, A2, and A3 is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in importation property, A3, would be $140 and the value of the property would be $20 immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(iv) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, A3, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, section 362(e)(1) and paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply and DC's basis in A3 will be equal to A3's $20 value immediately after the transfer.

(v) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. The application of section 362(e)(2) is determined separately for each transferor. See § 1.362-4.

(A) DC1's transfer. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in A1 ($40 under section 362(a)) would not exceed its value immediately after the transfer. Therefore, DC1 does not have a net built-in loss, DC1's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to DC1's transfer. DC's basis in A1, determined under section 362(a), is $40. Under section 358(a), DC1 receives the DC stock with a basis of $40.

(B) FC's transfer. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC would have a section 362(a) basis of $120 in A2, which would exceed A2's $30 value immediately after the transfer. Therefore, FC has a net built-in loss and FC's transfer of A2 is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), FC's $90 net built-in loss (DC's $120 basis in A2 over A2's $30 value) would be applied to reduce DC's basis in A2, the only loss property transferred by FC. As a result, DC's basis in A2 would be $30 ($120 basis under section 362(a), reduced by the $90 net built-in loss). However, if FC and DC were to elect under section 362(e)(2)(C) to apply the $90 basis reduction to FC's basis in the DC stock received in the transaction, DC's basis in A2 would be its $120 basis determined under section 362(a). If FC and DC do not make a section 362(e)(2)(C) election, FC's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $120; if FC and DC do make the election, FC's basis in the DC stock will be $30 ($120−$90). See § 1.362-4.

(C) F's transfer. F's transfer of A3 is a transaction described in section 362(a). However, taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in A3 ($20) would not exceed its value immediately after the transfer. Therefore, F does not have a built-in loss, F's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to F's transfer. DC's basis in A3, as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 4, is $20. Under section 358(a), F receives the DC stock with a basis of $140.

Example 5.

Partnership transactions. (i) Transfer by foreign partnership, foreign and domestic partners. (A) Facts. A and F are equal partners in FP. FP owns A1 (basis $100, value $70). Under the terms of the FP partnership agreement, FP's items of income, gain, deduction, and loss are allocated equally between A and F. Section 704(c) does not apply with respect to the partnership property. FP transfers A1 to DC in a transfer to which section 351 applies. No election is made under section 362(e)(2)(C).

(B) Importation property. If FP had sold A1 immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would be allocated to and includible by A and F equally under the partnership agreement. Thus, under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, A1 is treated as tentatively divided into two equal portions, one treated as owned by A and one treated as owned by F. If FP had sold A1 immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the portion treated as owned by A would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability (A's); thus A's tentatively divided portion of A1 is not importation property. However, no gain or loss recognized on the tentatively divided portion treated as owned by F would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if DC had sold A1 immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability (DC's); thus, F's tentatively divided portion of A1 is importation property.

(C) Loss importation transaction. FP's transfer of A1 is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in the importation property, F's portion of A1, would be $50 under section 362(a) and the property's value would be $35 immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, F's tentatively divided portion of A1, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, section 362(e)(1) and paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply and DC's basis in F's portion of A1 will be equal to its $35 value.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in A1 would be $85 (the sum of the $35 basis in F's tentatively divided portion of A1, as determined under paragraph (i)(D) of this Example 5, and the $50 basis in A's tentatively divided portion of A1, determined under section 362(a), see paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(3) of this section) and A1's value immediately after the transfer would be $70. Therefore, FP has a net built-in loss and FP's transfer of A1 is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), FP's $15 net built-in loss ($85 basis over $70 value) would be allocated to reduce DC's basis in the loss asset, A1, the only loss property transferred by FP. As a result, DC's basis in A1 would be $70 ($85 basis under section 362(a) and this section, reduced by the $15 net built-in loss). Under section 358, FP's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $100. See § 1.362-4.

(ii) Transfer with election to apply section 362(e)(2)(C). The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 5, except that FP and DC elect to apply section 362(e)(2)(C) to reduce FP's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange. The analysis and results are the same as in paragraphs (i)(B), (C), (D), and (E) of this Example 5, except that the $15 reduction to DC's basis in A1 is not made and, as a result, DC's basis in A1 remains $85, and FP's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange is reduced from $100 to $85. The $15 reduction to FP's basis in DC stock reduces A's basis in its FP interest under section 705(a)(2)(B). See § 1.362-4(e)(1).

(iii) Transfer by domestic partnership. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 5 except that FP is a domestic partnership. The analysis and results are the same as in paragraphs (i)(B), (C), (D), and (E) of this Example 5.

(iv) Transfer of interest in partnership with liability. (A) Facts. F and two other individuals are equal partners in FP. F's basis in its partnership interest is $247. F's share of FP's § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) is $150. F transfers his partnership interest to DC in a transaction to which section 351 applies. If DC were to sell the FP interest immediately after the transfer, DC would receive $100 in cash or other property. In addition, taking into account the rules under § 1.752-4, DC's share of FP's § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) is $145 immediately after the transfer.

(B) Importation property. If F had sold his partnership interest immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if DC had sold the partnership interest immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Therefore, F's partnership interest is importation property.

(C) Loss importation transaction. F's transfer is a section 362 transaction. However, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in the importation property, the partnership interest, determined under section 362(a) and taking into account the rules under section 752, would be $242 (F's $247 basis reduced by F's $150 share of FP liabilities and increased by DC's $145 share of FP liabilities) and, under paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, the value of the FP interest would be $245 (the sum of $100, the cash DC would receive if DC immediately sold the partnership interest, and $145, DC's share of the § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) under section 752 immediately after the transfer to DC). Therefore, the importation property's basis ($242) would not exceed its value ($245), and the transfer is not a loss importation transaction.

(D) Basis in property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. As described in paragraph (iv)(C) of this Example 5, taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in the partnership interest would not exceed its value. Therefore, under § 1.362-4, F does not have a net built-in loss, the transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to the transfer. DC's basis in F's partnership interest is $242, determined under sections 362(a) and 752. Under section 358, taking into account the rules under section 752, F's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange is $97 ($247 reduced by F's $150 share of FP liabilities). If FP had elected under section 754, or if section 743(b) required a downward basis adjustment to the partnership property, FP would apply the rules of § 1.743-1 to determine the amount of the basis adjustment to the partnership property.

Example 6.

Transactions involving tax-exempt entities. (i) Exempt transferor. (A) Facts. InsCo is a benevolent life insurance association of a purely local character exempt from federal income tax under section 501(a) because it is described in section 501(c)(12). InsCo owns shares of stock of DC1 (basis $100, value $70) for investment purposes, which are not debt-financed property (as defined in section 514). On December 31, Year 1, InsCo transfers the DC1 stock to DC in exchange for DC stock in a transaction to which section 351 applies. No election is made under section 362(e)(2)(C).

(B) Importation property. If InsCo had sold the DC1 stock immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss realized would be excluded from UBTI under section 512(b)(5), and thus no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining federal income tax liability. Further, if DC had sold the DC1 stock immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining federal income tax liability. Therefore, the DC1 stock is importation property.

(C) Loss importation transaction. InsCo's transfer is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in importation property, the DC1 stock, would be $100, and the stock's value would be $70 immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, the DC1 stock, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in the stock will be equal to its $70 value.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in the DC1 stock does not exceed its value immediately after the transaction. Therefore, InsCo does not have a net built-in loss, InsCo's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) has no application to the transaction. DC's basis in the DC1 stock, as determined under paragraph (i)(D) of this Example 6, is $70. Under section 358, InsCo's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $100.

(ii) Transferor loses tax-exempt status. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 6 except that InsCo fails to be described in section 501(c)(12) in Year 1.

(B) Importation property. If InsCo had sold the DC1 stock immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Therefore, the DC1 stock is not importation property and this section does not apply to the transaction.

(C) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC would have a section 362(a) basis of $100 in the stock, which would exceed its value of $70 immediately after the transfer. Therefore, InsCo has a net built-in loss and InsCo's transfer of the DC1 stock is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), InsCo's $30 net built-in loss ($100 basis over $70 value) would be allocated to reduce DC's basis in the loss asset, the DC1 stock, the only loss property transferred by InsCo. As a result, DC's basis in the DC1 stock would be $70 ($100 basis under section 362(a), reduced by the $30 net built-in loss). Under section 358, InsCo's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $100.

(iii) Transfer of property that is subject to unrelated business tax. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 6 except that, on December 31, Year 1, instead of the DC1 stock, InsCo transfers A1 (basis $200, value $150) to DC. A1 is real property that InsCo owned from January 1 to December 31 of Year 1. During the entirety of this period, A1's basis was $200, and in the twelve months prior to December 31, Year 1, the highest amount of outstanding principal indebtedness on A1 was $40. For purposes of the UBTI rules under section 512, A1 is debt-financed property within the meaning of section 514(b).

(B) Importation property. If InsCo had sold A1 immediately before the transaction, 20 percent of any gain or loss recognized on that sale (that is, $40 of acquisition indebtedness on A1 divided by A1's $200 basis in Year 1) would, under sections 512 and 514, be includible in UBTI at the end of Year 1, and 80 percent would not. Thus, under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, A1 is treated as tentatively divided into two portions, one reflecting the gain or loss that would be taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability in InsCo's hands immediately before the transfer (the 20 percent portion) and one that would not (the 80 percent portion). Further, if DC sold A1 immediately after the transfer, any gain or loss on both portions would be taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Accordingly, the 20 percent portion is not importation property, but the 80 percent portion is.

(C) Loss importation transaction. InsCo's transfer of A1 is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in the importation property, the 80 percent portion of A1, would be $160 (80 percent of InsCo's $200 basis) under section 362(a) and the property's value would be $120 (80% of A1's $120 value) immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, the 80 percent portion of A1, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, section 362(e)(1) and paragraph (b)(1) of this section apply and DC's basis in that portion of A1 will be equal to its $120 value.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in A1 would be $160 (the sum of the $120 basis in the 80 percent importation portion of A1, as determined under paragraph (iii)(D) of this Example 6, and the $40 basis in the 20 percent portion of A1 that is not importation property, determined under section 362(a). See paragraph (e)(3) of this section). Further, A1's value immediately after the transfer would be $150. Therefore, InsCo has a net built-in loss in A1, and InsCo's transfer of A1 is a loss duplication transaction. Accordingly, under the general rule of section 362(e)(2), InsCo's $10 net built-in loss ($160 basis over $150 value) would be allocated to reduce DC's basis in the loss asset, A1, the only loss property transferred by InsCo. As a result, DC's basis in A1 would be $150 ($160 basis under section 362(a) and this section, reduced by the $10 net built-in loss). Under section 358, InsCo's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $200. See § 1.362-4.

(iv) Transfer with election to apply section 362(e)(2)(C). The facts are the same as in paragraph (iii)(A) of this Example 6, except that InsCo and DC elect to apply section 362(e)(2)(C) to reduce InsCo's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange. The analysis and results are the same as in paragraphs (iii)(B), (C), (D), and (E) of this Example 6, except that the $10 reduction to DC's basis in A1 is not made and, as a result, DC's basis in A1 remains $160; however, InsCo's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange is reduced from $200 to $190.

Example 7.

Transactions involving CFCs. (i) Transfer by CFC. (A) Facts. FC is a CFC with 100 shares of stock outstanding. A owns 60 of the shares and F owns the remaining 40 shares. FC owns two assets, A1 (basis $70, value $100), which is used in the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, and A2 (basis $100, value $75), which is not used in the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. FC transfers both assets to DC in a transaction to which section 351 applies.

(B) Importation property. If FC had sold A1 immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability (FC's). See section 882(a). Therefore, A1 is not importation property. If FC had sold A2 immediately before the transaction, FC would not take the gain or loss recognized into account in determining its federal income tax liability, but the gain or loss could be taken into account in determining a section 951 inclusion to FC's U.S. shareholders. However, under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, gain or loss is not deemed taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability solely because it could affect an inclusion under section 951(a). Further, if DC had sold A2 immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Therefore, A2 is importation property.

(C) Loss importation transaction. FC's transfer is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in the importation property, A2, would be $100 and the property's value would be $75 immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, A2, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in A2 will be equal to A2's $75 value immediately after the transfer.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section but without taking into account the provisions of section 362(e)(2), DC would have an aggregate basis of $145 in the transferred properties ($70 in A1, determined under section 362(a), plus $75 in A2, determined under this section) and the properties would have an aggregate value of $175 ($100 + $75) immediately after the transfer. Therefore, FC does not have a net built-in loss, FC's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to the transaction. DC's basis in A1 will be $70, determined under section 362(a), and DC's basis in A2 will be $75, as determined under paragraph (i)(D) of this Example 7. Under the general rule in section 358(a), FC receives the DC stock with a basis of $170 ($70 attributable to A1 plus $100 attributable to A2).

(ii) Transfer of CFC stock. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 7, except that A transfers its 60 shares of FC stock (basis $80, value $105) and F transfers its 40 shares of FC stock (basis $100, value $70) to DC in an exchange that qualifies under section 351.

(B) Importation property. If A had sold its FC shares immediately before the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability (A's). Therefore, A's FC shares are not importation property. However, if F had sold its FC shares immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Further, if DC had sold F's FC shares immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. Therefore, F's FC shares are importation property.

(C) Loss importation transaction. The transfer of the FC shares is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's aggregate basis in the importation property, F's shares of FC stock, would be $100 under section 362(a) and the shares' aggregate value would be $70. Therefore, the importation property's aggregate basis would exceed its aggregate value, and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(D) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, F's shares of FC stock, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's aggregate basis in the shares will be equal to their $70 aggregate value immediately after the transfer.

(E) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. The application of section 362(e)(2) is determined separately for each transferor. See § 1.362-4(b).

(1) A's transfer. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in the shares ($80 under section 362(a)) would not exceed the shares' value ($105) immediately after the transaction. Therefore A does not have a built-in loss, A's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to A's transfer. DC's aggregate basis in A's shares, determined under section 362(a), is $80. Under section 358(a), A receives the DC stock with a basis of $80.

(2) F's transfer. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in the shares would not exceed their value immediately after the transaction. Therefore, F does not have a built-in loss, F's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to F's transfer. DC's aggregate basis in F's shares, as determined under paragraph (ii)(D) of this Example 7, is $70. Under section 358(a), F receives the DC stock with a basis of $100.

Example 8.

Property subject to withholding tax. (i) Facts. FC owns a share of DC1 stock (basis $100, value $70) as an investment. FC receives dividends on the share that are subject to federal withholding tax of 30 percent of the amount received under section 881(a); under section 1442(a), DC1 must withhold tax on the dividends paid. FC transfers the DC1 share to DC in a transaction to which section 351 applies.

(ii) Importation property. Although any dividends received with respect to the DC1 stock were subject to withholding tax, if FC had sold the share of stock of DC1, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. See section 865(a)(2). Further, if DC had sold the share of DC1 stock immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would be taken into account in determining federal income tax liability. Therefore, the share of DC1 stock is importation property.

(iii) Loss importation transaction. FC's transfer is a section 362 transaction. Furthermore, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), DC's basis in the importation property, the share of DC1 stock, would be $100 and the share's value would be $70 immediately after the transaction. Therefore, the share's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction.

(iv) Application of section 362(e)(1) and this section to importation property received in loss importation transaction. Because the importation property, the DC1 share, was transferred in a loss importation transaction, paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies and DC's basis in the share will be equal to the share's $70 value.

(v) Basis of property received in transaction. Following the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, the provisions of section 362(e)(2) must be taken into account because the transfer is a section 362(a) transaction. Taking into account the application of section 362(e)(1) and this section, DC's basis in the DC1 share would not exceed the share's value immediately after the transaction. Therefore, FC does not have a net built-in loss, FC's transfer is not a loss duplication transaction, and section 362(e)(2) does not apply to the transaction. DC's basis in the DC1 share, as determined under paragraph (iv) of this Example 8, is $70. Under section 358, FC's basis in the DC stock received in the exchange will be $100.

Example 9.

Property transferred in triangular reorganization. (i) Foreign subsidiary. (A) Facts. P owns the sole outstanding share of stock of FC (basis $1), FC1 owns the sole outstanding share of FC2 (basis $100), and FC2 owns one asset, A1 (basis $100, value $20). In a forward triangular merger described in § 1.358-6(b)(2)(i), FC2 merges with and into FC, and FC1 receives shares of P stock in exchange for its FC2 stock. The forward triangular merger is a transaction described in section 368(a)(2)(D) and, therefore, in section 362(b).

(B) Determining P's basis in its FC share. Pursuant to § 1.358-6, for purposes of determining the adjustment to P's basis in its FC shares, P is treated as though it first received A1 in a transaction in which its basis in A1 would be determined under section 362(b) and then it transferred A1 to FC in a transaction in which P's basis in its FC stock would be determined under section 358.

(1) P's deemed acquisition and transfer of A1. If FC2 had sold A1 for its value immediately before the deemed transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. If P had sold A1 immediately after the deemed transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability (P's). Therefore, with respect to P's deemed acquisition, A1 is importation property. Furthermore, immediately after the deemed transaction, P's basis in A1, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), would be $100 and A1's value is $20. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction. Accordingly, P's deemed basis in A1 will be equal to A1's $20 value.

(2) P's FC stock basis. As a result of P's deemed transfer of A1 to FC (and applying the principles of § 1.367(b)-13), P's basis in its FC stock is increased by its $20 deemed basis in A1. Accordingly, following the transaction, P's basis in its share of FC stock will be $21 (the sum of its original $1 basis and the $20 adjustment for the deemed transfer of A1).

(C) FC's basis in A1. FC's basis in A1 is determined under the rules of this section without regard to the determination of P's adjustment to its basis in FC stock. If FC2 had sold A1 for its value immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. However, if FC had sold A1 immediately after the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability, so A1 is not importation property. Accordingly, this section will not apply to the transaction. Although there is a net built-in loss in A1, the transaction is not described in section 362(a), and so section 362(e)(2) and § 1.362-4 will not apply to the transaction. Thus, under section 362(b), FC's basis in A1 will be $100.

(D) FC1's basis in P stock. Under section 358, FC1's basis in the P stock it receives in the exchange will be $100.

(ii) Property transferred to U.S. subsidiary in triangular reorganization. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as in paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 9, except that P also owns the sole outstanding share of DC (basis $1) and, instead of merging into FC, FC2 merged into DC.

(B) Determining P's basis in its DC share. As determined under paragraph (i)(B)(2) of this Example 9, P's basis in its DC share is $21, the sum of its original $1 basis plus the $20 adjustment for the deemed transfer of A1.

(C) DC's basis in A1. If FC2 had sold A1 for its value immediately before the transaction, no gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. However, if DC had sold A1 immediately after the transaction, any gain or loss recognized on the sale would have been taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability, so A1 is importation property with respect to DC. Furthermore, immediately after the transaction, DC's basis in A1, but for section 362(e)(1) and this section and section 362(e)(2), would be $100 and A1's value is $20. Therefore, the importation property's basis would exceed its value and the transfer is a loss importation transaction. Accordingly, DC's basis in A1 will be $20, A1's value immediately after the transaction.

(D) FC1's basis in P stock. Under section 358, FC1's basis in the P stock it receives in the exchange is $100.

(g) Applicability date. This section applies with respect to any transaction occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to any transaction occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such transaction is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter. In addition, taxpayers may apply this section to any transaction occurring after October 22, 2004.

Par. 11. Section 1.362-4 is amended by: 1. Revising the heading to paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (c)(3). 2. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (h). 3. Revising the third sentence of paragraph (h) Example 4 paragraph (iv)(B). 4. Revising paragraph (h) Example 11. 5. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (j).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1.362-4 Basis of loss duplication property.

(c) Exceptions and special rules. * * *

(3) Other effects of basis determination under this section—(i) Determination by reference to transferor's basis. A determination of basis under this section is a determination by reference to the transferor's basis, including for purposes of sections 755, 1223(2), and 7701(a)(43).

(ii) Treatment as tax-exempt income or noncapital, nondeductible expense. A determination of basis under paragraph (b) of this section does not give rise to an item treated as a noncapital, nondeductible expense under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(iii). However, a determination of basis under paragraph (d) of this section does give rise to an item treated as a noncapital, nondeductible expense under § 1.1502-32(b)(2)(iii).

(h) Examples. The examples in this paragraph (h) illustrate the application of section 362(e)(2) and the provisions of this section. Unless the facts otherwise indicate, the examples use the following nomenclature and assumptions: X, Y, P, S, S1, and S2 are domestic corporations; A and B are U.S. individuals; FC1 and FC2 are foreign corporations and are not engaged in a U.S. trade or business, have no U.S. real property interests, and have no other relationships, activities, or interests that would cause them, their shareholders, or their property to be subject to tax imposed under any provision of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (federal income tax); there is no applicable income tax treaty; PRS is a domestic partnership; no election is made under section 362(e)(2)(C); and the transferred property is not importation property (as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(2)) and the transfers are not loss importation transactions (as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(3)), so that the basis of no property is determined under section 362(e)(1). All persons and transactions are unrelated unless the facts indicate otherwise, all taxpayers are on a calendar tax year, and all other relevant facts are set forth in the examples. See § 1.362-3(f) for additional examples illustrating the application of section 362(e)(2) and this section, including to transactions that are subject to section 362(e)(2), and section 362(e)(1).

Example 4. * * *

(iv) * * *

(B) Analysis. * * * For the reasons set forth in paragraph (iii)(B) of this Example 4, Y would have been required to reduce its basis in the transferred assets by $1.60. * * *

Example 11.

Transfers of importation property with non-importation property. (i) Single transferor, loss importation transaction. (A) Facts. FC1 transfers Asset 1 (basis $80, value $50), Asset 2 (basis $120, value $110), and Asset 3 (basis $32, value $40) to DC in a transaction to which section 351 applies. Asset 1 is not importation property within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(2). Asset 2 and Asset 3 are importation property within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(B) Application of section 362(e)(1). Immediately after the transfer, and without regard to section 362(e)(1) or section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in importation property (Asset 2 and Asset 3) would be $152. The aggregate value of the importation property immediately after the transfer is $150. Accordingly, the transaction is a loss importation transaction within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(3) and, under section 362(e)(1), DC's bases in Asset 2 and Asset 3 would equal the value of each, $110 and $40, respectively.

(C) Application of section 362(e)(2) and this section. (1) Analysis. (i) Loss duplication transaction. FC1's transfer of Asset 1, Asset 2, and Asset 3 is a transaction described in section 362(a). But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in those assets would be $230 ($80 under section 362(a) + $110 + $40 under section 362(e)(1)), which would exceed the aggregate value of the assets $200 ($50 + $110 + 40) immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, the transfer is a loss duplication transaction and FC1 has a net built-in loss of $30 ($230 − $200).

(ii) Identifying loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 1 would be $80, which would exceed Asset 1's $50 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 1 is loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 2 would be $110, which would not exceed Asset 2's $110 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 2 is not loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 3 would be $40, which would not exceed Asset 3's $40 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 3 is not loss duplication property.

(D) Basis in loss duplication property. DC's basis in Asset 1 is $50, computed as its $80 basis under section 362(a) reduced by FC1's $30 net built-in loss.

(E) Basis in other property. Under section 362(e)(1), DC's basis in Asset 2 is $110 and DC's basis in Asset 3 is $40. Under section 358(a), FC1 has an exchanged basis of $232 in the DC stock it receives in the transaction.

(ii) Multiple transferors, no importation of loss. (A) Facts. The facts are the same as paragraph (i)(A) of this Example 11, except that, in addition, FC2 transfers Asset 4 (basis $100, value $150) to DC as part of the same transaction. Asset 4 is importation property within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(2).

(B) Application of section 362(e)(1). Immediately after the transfer, and without regard to section 362(e)(1) or section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in importation property (Asset 2, Asset 3, and Asset 4) would be $252 ($120 + $32 + $100). The aggregate value of the importation property immediately after the transfer is $300 ($110 + $40 + $150). Accordingly, the transaction is not a loss importation transaction within the meaning of § 1.362-3(c)(3) and DC's bases in the importation property is not determined under section 362(e)(1).

(C) Application of section 362(e)(2) and this section. Notwithstanding that the transfers by FC1 and FC2 are pursuant to a single plan forming one transaction, section 362(e)(2) and this section apply to each transferor separately.

(1) Application of section to FC1. (i) Loss duplication transaction. FC1's transfer of Asset 1, Asset 2, and Asset 3 is a transaction described in section 362(a). But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's aggregate basis in those assets would be $232 ($80 + $120 + $32), which would exceed the aggregate value of the assets $200 ($50 + $110 + $40) immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, the transfer is a loss duplication transaction and FC1 has a net built-in loss of $32 ($232 − $200).

(ii) Identifying loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 1 would be $80, which would exceed Asset 1's $50 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 1 is loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 2 would be $120, which would exceed Asset 2's $110 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 2 is also loss duplication property. But for section 362(e)(2) and this section, DC's basis in Asset 3 would be $32, which would not exceed Asset 3's $40 value immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, Asset 3 is not loss duplication property.

(iii) Basis in loss duplication property. DC's basis in Asset 1 is $56, computed as its $80 basis under section 362(a) reduced by $24, its allocable portion of FC1's $32 net built-in loss ($30/40 × $32). DC's basis in Asset 2 is $112, computed as its $120 basis under section 362(a) reduced by $8, its allocable portion of FC1's $40 net built-in loss ($10/$40 × $32).

(iv) Basis in other property. Under section 358(a), FC1 has an exchanged basis of $232 in the DC stock it receives in the transaction.

(2) Application of section to FC2. FC2's transfer of Asset 3 is not a loss duplication transaction because Asset 3's value exceeds its basis immediately after the transaction. Accordingly, under section 362(a), DC's basis in Asset 3 is $100.

(j) Effective/applicability date. * * * The introductory text and Example 11 of paragraph (h) of this section apply with respect to transactions occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to transactions occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such transaction is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter. In addition, taxpayers may apply such provisions to any transaction occurring after October 22, 2004.

Par. 12. Section 1.368-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) and adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 1.368-3 Records to be kept and information to be filed with returns.

(a) * * *

(3) The value and basis of the assets, stock or securities of the target corporation transferred in the transaction, determined immediately before the transfer and aggregated as follows—

(i) Importation property transferred in a loss importation transaction, as defined in § 1.362-3(c)(2) and (3), respectively;

(ii) Loss duplication property as defined in § 1.362-4(g)(1);

(iii) Property with respect to which any gain or loss was recognized on the transfer (without regard to whether such property is also identified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section);

(iv) Property not described in paragraph (a)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section; and

(b) * * *

(3) The value and basis of all the stock or securities of the target corporation held by the significant holder that is transferred in the transaction and such holder's basis in that stock or securities, determined immediately before the transfer and aggregated as follows—

(i) Stock and securities with respect to which an election is made under section 362(e)(2)(C); and

(ii) Stock and securities not described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.

(e) Effective/applicability date. * * * Paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) of this section apply with respect to reorganizations occurring on or after March 28, 2016, and also with respect to reorganizations occurring before such date as a result of an entity classification election under § 301.7701-3 of this chapter filed on or after March 28, 2016, unless such reorganization is pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016 and at all times thereafter.

Par. 13. Section 1.705-1 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:
§ 1.705-1 Determination of basis of partner's interest.

(a) * * *

(9) For basis adjustments necessary to coordinate sections 705 and 362(e)(2), see § 1.362-4(e)(1).

Par. 14. Section 1.755-1 is amended by adding a sentence after the second sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1.755-1 Rules for allocation of basis.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Application. * * * For transfers subject to section 334(b)(1)(B), see § 1.334-1(b)(3)(iii)(C)(1) (treating a determination of basis under § 1.334-1(b)(3) as a determination not by reference to the transferor's basis solely for purposes of applying section 755); for transfers subject to section 362(e)(1), see § 1.362-3(b)(4)(i) (treating a determination of basis under § 1.362-3 as a determination not by reference to the transferor's basis solely for purposes of applying section 755); for transfers subject to section 362(e)(2), see § 1.362-4(c)(3)(i) (treating a determination of basis under § 1.362-4 as a determination by reference to the transferor's basis for all purposes). * * *

Par. 15. Section 1.1367-1 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
§ 1.1367-1 Adjustments to basis of shareholder's stock in an S corporation.

(c) * * *

(2) Noncapital, nondeductible expenses. * * * For basis adjustments necessary to coordinate sections 1367 and 362(e)(2), see § 1.362-4(e)(2).

John M Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: February 16, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
[FR Doc. 2016-06227 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 Tax Treatment of Cafeteria Plans CFR Correction

In Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 (§§ 1.61 to 1.139), revised as of April 1, 2015, on page 545, § 1.125-4T is removed.

[FR Doc. 2016-07018 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0530] Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks, Lake Michigan AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Michigan City Summerfest Fireworks Safety Zone on a portion of Lake Michigan on July 4, 2016. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. During the enforcement period listed below, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter, transit, or anchor in the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulation in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for the safety zone listed as (e)(35) in Table 165.929 on July 4, 2016 from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at 630-986-2155, email address [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Michigan City Summerfest listed as item (e)(35) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on a navigable waterway during the fireworks display. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Michigan City Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000 foot radius from the launch site located in position 41°43.700′ N., 086°54.617′ W. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

Dated: March 18, 2016. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2016-06910 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031; FRL-9943-00] Mandipropamid; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation increases existing tolerances for residues of mandipropamid in or on potato, wet peel, and the vegetable, tuberous and corm subgroup 1C. Syngenta Crop Protection requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective March 28, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 27, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

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

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 27, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8329) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.637 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid in or on potato at 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The petition also requested to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.637 for residues of mandipropamid in or on potato, wet peel at 0.12 ppm, and amend the current tolerance commodity terminology which contains potato from “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,” to “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, except potato.” That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the tolerances being established by this document. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

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

A. Toxicological Profile

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

Subchronic and chronic studies indicate that the liver is the primary target organ for mandipropamid. Liver effects were identified in subchronic studies with rats, mice, and dogs. Liver effects included: Periportal hypertrophy (rats), increased eosinophilia (rats and mice), increased plasma albumin, total protein, cholesterol, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (rats), increased liver weights (rats, mice and dogs), increased liver enzymes (dogs), increased pigment in hepatocytes and Kupffer cells (dogs), and centrilobular hepatocyte vacuolation (dogs). In the chronic dog study, increases in microscopic pigment in the liver and increased liver enzymes were observed. No liver effects were observed in chronic rat and mouse studies up to the highest doses tested. Instead, nephrotoxicity was observed in the chronic rat study and only decreased body weight and food utilization was observed in the chronic mouse study. The findings of liver toxicity and nephrotoxicity are consistent with the results from metabolism studies where the tissues with the highest levels of radioactivity were the liver followed by the kidney.

No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity screening battery. No systemic or dermal toxicity was observed following dermal exposure for 28 days up to the limit dose.

No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in a reproduction study in rats. The only effects observed in fetuses or pups were in the two-generation reproduction study, where decreased pup body weight was observed in the presence of maternal toxicity (decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food utilization). In addition, there was a delay in preputial separation in F1 males which was considered to be the result of lower body weights.

There was no evidence of tumors in the carcinogenicity study in mice or in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats and there was no evidence that mandipropamid was mutagenic or clastogenic. Therefore, mandipropamid is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by mandipropamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Mandipropamid: Human Health Risk Assessment For Amended Use of the Fungicide on Potato, to Replace the Established Tolerance in Tuberous and Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C, and to Revise the Established Tolerance in Potato Wet Peel” on page 30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mandipropamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 20, 2013 (78 FR 76987) (FRL-9903-57).

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to mandipropamid. EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing mandipropamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.637. EPA assessed dietary exposures from mandipropamid in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for mandipropamid; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues, with the exception of vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, which was assessed at 0.115 ppm, assuming tolerance-level residues of parent mandipropamid (0.09 ppm) and including the SYN 500003 metabolite in parent-equivalents (at 0.025 ppm).

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that mandipropamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for mandipropamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all existing and proposed food commodities, except subgroup 1C, as described above.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for mandipropamid in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of mandipropamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model for surface water and both the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mandipropamid for chronic exposures are estimated to be 9.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 79 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 79 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

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

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

EPA has not found mandipropamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and mandipropamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that mandipropamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no treatment-related effects observed in dams or fetuses in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rat reproductive study, decreased pup weight occurred only in the presence of comparable maternal toxicity (decreased body weight). Therefore, the Agency concludes that there is no increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit offspring exposed in utero or post-natally to mandipropamid, and there are no residual uncertainties with respect to pre- or postnatal exposure.

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

i. The toxicity database for mandipropamid is complete.

ii. There is no indication that mandipropamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

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

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, except for subgroup 1C, as described in Section C.1.ii. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to mandipropamid in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by mandipropamid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

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

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

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to mandipropamid from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for mandipropamid.

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

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

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, mandipropamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

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

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

B. International Residue Limits

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

There is a Codex MRL established on potato at 0.01 ppm. With the increased tolerance in subgroup 1C to 0.09 ppm, the U.S. tolerance will no longer be in harmonization with Codex's MRL in potato. Harmonization with the Codex value is not feasible, given that the Codex MRL is based on the foliar use pattern only, and the U.S. tolerance is based on the proposed combination of seed piece treatment and foliar uses.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

Instead of the proposed tolerance in potato (0.08 ppm), EPA is revising the existing tolerance for residues in tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm. The proposed tolerance was based on a dataset that only included results from trials conducted in the U.S. The calculated tolerance in subgroup 1C, based on US and Canadian potato field trial data entered into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) tolerance calculation procedure, was 0.07 ppm. However, EPA is establishing a tolerance in subgroup 1C of 0.09 ppm, in order to harmonize with Canada's recommended MRL.

The proposed tolerance in potato wet peel (0.12 ppm) was based on the average processing factor (2.0X) multiplied by the highest average field trial (HAFT) (0.056 ppm). However, the tolerance being established (0.15 ppm) is based on the rounding protocol in the User Guide for the OECD tolerance calculation procedure.

It is not appropriate to establish the proposed tolerance in tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C (except potato), because potato is the only representative commodity for subgroup 1C. For the same reason, the proposed separate tolerance in potato is unnecessary.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, the existing tolerance for residues of mandipropamid on “potato, wet peel” is modified from 0.03 ppm to 0.15 ppm and the existing tolerance on “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C” is modified from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

Dated: March 16, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

2. In § 180.637, revise the entries for “Potato, wet peel” and “Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 180.637 Mandipropamid; tolerances for residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts
  • per
  • million
  • *    *    *    *    * Potato, wet peel 0.15 *    *    *    *    * Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C 0.09
    [FR Doc. 2016-06948 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [GN Docket No. 12-268; FCC 14-50] Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, certain information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions Report and Order (Incentive Auction Report and Order), FCC 14-50. This document is consistent with the Incentive Auction Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the new

    DATES:

    47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(i) through (v), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i) and (ii), and (b)(5); 73.3700(c); 73.3700(d); 73.3700(f); 73.3700(g); 73.3700(h)(5), and FCC Form 2100, Schedules A, B, E and F, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014, are effective March 28, 2016. OMB approved the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(vii) and (h)(2) on March 17, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on March 17, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order, FCC 14-50, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0016, 3060-0027, 3060-0386, 3060-0837, 3060-0928, 3060-0932 and 3060-1216. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1194, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [email protected]

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on March 17, 2016, for some of the information collection requirements contained in FCC 14-50, 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(i) through (v), (vii), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i) and (ii), and (b)(5); 73.3700(c); 73.3700(d); 73.3700(f); 73.3700(g); 73.3700(h)(2), 73.3700(h)(5), and FCC Form 2100, Schedules A, B, E and F.

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0016, 3060-0027, 3060-0386, 3060-0837, 3060-0928, 3060-0932 and 3060-1216. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0016.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule C (Former FCC Form 346); Sections 74.793(d) and 74.787; LPTV Out-of-Core Digital Displacement Application; Section 73.3700(g)(1)-(3), Post-Incentive Auction Licensing and Operations.

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule C.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,250 respondents and 4,250 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.5-7 hours (total of 9.5 hours).

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i), 303, 307, 308 and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 40,375 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $23,579,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow Low Power television stations and TV Translator stations that are displaced as a result of the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction to submit an application for displacement relief during a restricted filing window. Form 2100, Schedule C is also used to apply for authority to construct or make changes to a Low Power Television, TV Translator or TV Booster broadcast station. OMB approved the requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0027.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast *71795 Station, FCC Form 301; FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule A; 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1) and (2), Post Auction Licensing.

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule A.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,080 respondents and 6,516 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-6.25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 15,287 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $62,775,788.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow full-power television broadcast stations that are relocated to a new channel following the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction to submit a construction application to build new facilities to operate on their post-auction channel. Form 2100, Schedule A is also used to apply for authority to construct a new commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station and to make changes to existing facilities of such a station. OMB approved the requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-1216.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: Media Bureau Incentive Auction Implementation, Sections 73.3700(b)(4)(i)-(ii), (c), (d),

    (h)(5)-(6) and (g)(4).

    Form No.: N/A.

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

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,950 respondents and 174,219 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .004-15 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 325(b), 332, 336(f), 338, 339, 340, 399b, 403, 534, 535, 1404, 1452, and 1454.

    Total Annual Burden: 24,932 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $1,214,400.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to require broadcasters transitioning to a new station following the Incentive Auction, or going off the air as a result of a winning bid in the Incentive Auction, to notify their viewers of the date the station will terminate operations on its pre-Auction channel by running public service announcements, and allow these broadcasters to inform MVPDs of their relinquishment or change in channel. It requires channel sharing agreements enter into by television broadcast licensees to contain certain provisions regarding access to facilities, financial obligations and to define each party's rights and responsibilities; the Commission will review each channel sharing agreement to ensure it comports with general rules and policies regarding license agreements. The provisions contained in this collection also require wireless licensees to notify low-power television and TV translator stations commence wireless operations and the likelihood of receiving harmful interference from the low power TV or TV translator station to such operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area. Finally, it requires license relinquishment stations and channel sharing stations to comply with notification and cancellation procedures as they terminate operations on their pre-Auction channel. OMB approved the requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0386.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: Special Temporary Authorization (STA) Requests; Notifications; and Informal Filings; Sections 1.5, 73.1615, 73.1635, 73.1740 and 73.3598; CDBS Informal Forms; Section 74.788; Low Power Television, TV Translator and Class A Television Digital Transition Notifications; Section 73.3700(b)(5), Post Auction Licensing; Section 73.3700(f), Service Rule Waiver; FCC Form 337.

    Form No.: FCC Form 337.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,609 respondents and 6,609 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .50-4.0 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, § 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act); and Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,475 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $2,156,510.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow television broadcast stations to request special temporary authority (STA) to operate, seek an extension of time to complete construction, request a waiver of the Commission's service rules following the Incentive Auction, and make other informal requests and submissions. OMB approved the requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0837.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule B (Former FCC Form 302-DTV).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule B.

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

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A-594-1501A-598 (1999) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 336(f)); and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, sections 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

    Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $460,070.00.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow full-power television broadcast stations to file a license to cover an authorized construction permit once facilities have been constructed. In addition, full-power television broadcast stations that enter into channel sharing agreements following the Commission's Incentive Auction will use FCC Form 2100, Schedule B to file an application for a license for the shared channel sharing, and will allow a full-power station, upon termination of its channel sharing agreement, to file an application to change its license to non-shared status using FCC Form 2100, Schedule B. The requirements were approved by OMB.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0928.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F (Formerly FCC 302-CA); 47 CFR 73.3572(h) and 47 CFR 73.3700(b)).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule F.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $300,825.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used by Class A stations seeking a license to cover their authorized construction permit facilities and Class A stations entering into a channel sharing agreement. These requirements were approved by OMB.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0932.

    OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

    Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule E (Former FCC Form 301-CA); 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(i)-(v) and (vii), (b)(2)(i) and (ii); 47 CFR 74.793(d).

    Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule E (Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization) (Former FCC Form 301-CA).

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 725 respondents and 725 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours-6 hours (for a total of 8.25 hours).

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, sections 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) and the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,981 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $3,949,550.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used allow Class A television stations to make changes in their authorized facilities. Specifically, Class A stations assigned to a new channel following the Incentive Auction must file a minor change application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule E following release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Under certain circumstances, licensees of stations reassigned to a new channel within their existing band to propose transmission facilities in their construction permit applications that will extend their coverage contours. In addition, there will be a priority processing window for licensees of reassigned stations, UHF-to-VHF stations, or High-VHF-to-Low-VHF stations that, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to construct facilities that meet the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice, or the permissible contour coverage variance from those technical parameters specified in section 73.3700(b)(1)(ii) or (iii). Channel sharee stations file a minor change application for a construction permit for the channel on which the channel sharer operates at least sixty (60) days prior to the date by which it must terminate operations on its pre-auction channel and must include a copy of the channel sharing agreement. In addition, subject to limitations set out in the rules, a Class A licensee of a reassigned station, a UHF-to-VHF station, or a High-VHF-to-Low-VHF station may file a minor change application for a construction permit on FCC Form 2100 Schedule E during a filing window to be announced by the Media Bureau by public notice, in order to request a change in the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice with respect to height above average terrain (HAAT), effective radiated power (ERP), or transmitter location that would be considered a minor change under sections 73.3572(a)(1), (2) or 74.787(b). FCC Form 2100, Schedule E was modified to accommodate new channel sharing provisions. OMB approved the requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06814 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 Threatened and Endangered Marine and Anadromous Species CFR Correction

    In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 200 to 227, revised as of October 1, 2015, on page 305, in § 223.102(e), revise the table entries for “Sea turtle, loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS)”, “Sea turtle, loggerhead (South Atlantic Ocean DPS)”, “Sea turtle, loggerhead (Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS)”, and “Sea turtle, loggerhead (Southwest Indian Ocean DPS)” to read as follows:

    § 223.102 Enumeration of threatened marine and anadromous species.

    (e) * * *

    Species 1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing
  • determination(s)
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • ESA rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sea Turtles2 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sea turtle, loggerhead (Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Northwest Atlantic Ocean north of the equator, south of 60° N. Lat., and west of 40° W. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 17.95(c), 226.223 223.205, 223.206, 223.207. Sea turtle, loggerhead (South Atlantic Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the South Atlantic Ocean south of the equator, north of 60° S. Lat., west of 20° E. Long., and east of 67° W. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 223.205, 223.206, 223.207. Sea turtle, loggerhead (Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Southeast Indian Ocean south of the equator, north of 60° S. Lat., and east of 80° E. Long.; South Pacific Ocean south of the equator, north of 60° S. Lat., and west of 141° E. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 223.205, 223.206, 223.207. Sea turtle, loggerhead (Southwest Indian Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Southwest Indian Ocean south of the equator, north of 60° S. Lat., east of 20° E. Long., and west of 80° E. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 223.205, 223.206, 223.207. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.

    On page 374, in § 224.101(h), revise the table entries for “Sea turtle, loggerhead (Mediterranean Sea DPS)”, “Sea turtle loggerhead (North Indian Ocean DPS)”, “Sea turtle, loggerhead (North Pacific Ocean DPS)”, “Sea turtle, loggerhead (Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS)”, and “Sea turtle, loggerhead (South Pacific Ocean DPS)” to read as follows:

    § 224.101 Enumeration of endangered marine and anadromous species.

    (h) * * *

    Species 1 Common name Scientific name Description of listed entity Citation(s) for listing
  • determination(s)
  • Critical
  • habitat
  • ESA Rules
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sea Turtles2 Sea turtle, loggerhead (Mediterranean Sea DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Mediterranean Sea east of 5°36′ W. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 224.104 Sea turtle, loggerhead (North Indian Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the North Indian Ocean north of the equator and south of 30° N. Lat 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 224.104 Sea turtle, loggerhead (North Pacific Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the North Pacific north of the equator and south of 60° N. Lat 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 224.104 Sea turtle, loggerhead (Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the Northeast Atlantic Ocean north of the equator, south of 60° N. Lat., and east of 40° W. Long., except in the vicinity of the Strait of Gibraltar where the eastern boundary is 5°36′ W. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 224.104 Sea turtle, loggerhead (South Pacific Ocean DPS) Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the South Pacific south of the equator, north of 60° S. Lat., west of 67° W. Long., and east of 141° E. Long 76 FR 58868, Sep 22, 2011 NA 224.104 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Species includes taxonomic species, subspecies, distinct population segments (DPSs) (for a policy statement, see 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) (for a policy statement, see 56 FR 58612, November 20, 1991). 2 Jurisdiction for sea turtles by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, is limited to turtles while in the water.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07044 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 001005281-0369-02] RIN 0648-XE533 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2016 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) to close the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) king mackerel resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 27, 2016, through June 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Gerhart, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The Gulf migratory group king mackerel is divided into western and eastern zones. The Gulf's eastern zone for king mackerel is further divided into the Florida west coast northern and southern subzones that have separate commercial quotas. The 2015 to 2016 fishing year quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector in the Florida west coast southern subzone is 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)).

    From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone encompasses an area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) south of a line extending due west from the Lee and Collier County, Florida, boundary on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the Monroe and Miami-Dade County, Florida, boundary on the Florida east coast, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties, Florida. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is reduced to the EEZ off Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe County becomes part of the Atlantic migratory group area.

    Under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1), NMFS is required to close any component of the king mackerel commercial sector when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification at the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached by March 27, 2016. Accordingly, the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 27, 2016, through the end of the fishing year on June 30, 2016.

    On March 11, 2016, NMFS also closed the Florida west coast southern subzone to commercial harvest of king mackerel caught by run around gillnet gear, because the quota for that sector was reached (81 FR 12826, March 11, 2016). Therefore, during the closures no person aboard a vessel for which a valid commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may harvest or possess Gulf migratory group king mackerel in or from Federal waters of the closed subzone, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e). However, there is one exception. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit and also has a commercial king mackerel permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed subzone under the 2-fish daily recreational bag limit, provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. Charter vessels or headboats that have a valid commercial king mackerel permit are considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when they carry a passenger who pays a fee or when more than three persons are aboard, including operator and crew.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06942 Filed 3-23-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 141107936-5399-02] RIN 0648-XE526 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2016 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish; January Through June Season AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures for commercial gray triggerfish in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for gray triggerfish will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) for the January through June period by April 2, 2016. Therefore, NMFS is closing the commercial sector for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic EEZ on April 2, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the gray triggerfish resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016, until July 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Britni LaVine, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes gray triggerfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

    The final rule implementing FMP Amendment 29 divided the commercial ACL (equal to the commercial quota) for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic into two 6-month fishing seasons and allocated 50 percent, 156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight, of the total commercial ACL of 312,324 lb (141,668 kg), round weight, to each fishing season, January through June, and July through December (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(8)(i) and (ii).

    Under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish when either commercial quota specified in § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic gray triggerfish for the January through June fishing season will be reached by April 2, 2016. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic gray triggerfish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016, until the start of the July through December fishing season on July 1, 2016.

    The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having gray triggerfish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gray triggerfish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(8), and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c), apply to all harvest or possession of gray triggerfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. Also, during the closure, the sale or purchase of gray triggerfish taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on the sale or purchase does not apply to gray triggerfish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

    For a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for gray triggerfish apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of gray triggerfish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing FMP Amendment 29, which established the split commercial season for gray triggerfish, and the rule that established the closure provisions have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06957 Filed 3-23-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 140904754-5188-02] RIN 0648-BF92 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries off West Coast States; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule announces an inseason change to management measures in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. This action, which is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCFMP) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, implements changes to the incidental retention allowance for halibut in the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours (local time) March 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Williams (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-4646, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This final rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/search/home.action. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/.

    Background

    The PCGFMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS.

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) establishes total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for Pacific halibut each year in January. Under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.63, a Catch Sharing Plan for IPHC Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast), developed by the Council and implemented by the Secretary, allocates portions of the annual TAC among fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California.

    Pacific halibut is generally a prohibited species for vessels fishing in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries, unless explicitly allowed in groundfish regulations and authorized by the Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan.

    In years where the Pacific halibut TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), the Catch Sharing Plan allows the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery an incidental total catch allowance for Pacific halibut north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.). The 2016 Pacific halibut Area 2A TAC is 1,140,000 lb (517.1 mt). Consistent with the provisions of the Catch Sharing Plan, the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery is allowed an incidental total catch limit of 49,686 lb (22.54 mt) for 2016.

    At its March 2016 meeting, the Council considered the new 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) for Pacific halibut in Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West coast), and the total catch of Pacific halibut in the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery in recent years. Because the 2016 allocation of halibut to the sablefish primary fishery is similar to landings in 2007 and 2008, the Council recommended a landing restriction similar to the one approved in those years of 110 lbs of halibut for every 1,000 lbs of sablefish and up to two additional halibut in excess of the ratio. NMFS notes that, given the increased allocation in 2016, liberalizing the incidental catch restrictions is anticipated to allow total catch of Pacific halibut to approach, but not exceed, the 2016 allocation for the sablefish primary fishery.

    In order to allow incidental halibut catch in the sablefish primary fishery to begin on April 1, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing incidental halibut retention regulations at 50 CFR 660.231(b)(3)(iv) to allow the catch ratio of “110 lb (50 kg) dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 pounds (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed and up to 2 additional halibut in excess of the 110-pounds-per-1,000-pound ratio per landing” to be in effect “From April 1 through October 31.”

    The retention limits for halibut were not revised as part of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures because the Pacific halibut TAC is developed each year based on the most current scientific information, and the TAC for 2016 was not determined until the IPHC meeting in January, 2016.

    Classification

    This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations. The adjustment to the halibut incidental catch restrictions in the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery is taken under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Act, based on actions taken under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act and implementing regulations, and is consistent with the approved Catch Sharing Plan.

    This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

    For the following reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective March 25, 2016.

    As described above, this inseason action is based on information that became available very recently. The changes to the incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.), and the subsequent proposed management measure changes are based in part on decisions made by the IPHC at its January 2016 meeting. At that meeting, the IPHC determined the 2016 halibut TAC based on the most current scientific information regarding the status of the halibut stock. Based on this action, the Council made its final recommendations at its March 9-14, 2016 meeting. The Council considered the public comments on this matter and recommended that these changes be implemented by April 1, 2016. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to complete notice and comment rulemaking before these changes need to be in effect. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, allocations in accordance with the PCGFMP, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and other applicable laws. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off Washington State. These adjustments to management measures must be implemented in a timely manner, by April 1, 2016 or as quickly as possible thereafter, to allow incidental catch of halibut in the sablefish primary fishery, reducing regulatory discards, while keeping total catch below the 2016 halibut Area 2A allocation.

    No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established for 2015-2016.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: March 23, 3016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.231, revise paragraph (b)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
    § 660.231 Limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery.

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Incidental halibut retention north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.). From April 1 through October 31, vessels authorized to participate in the sablefish primary fishery, licensed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission for commercial fishing in Area 2A (waters off Washington, Oregon, California), and fishing with longline gear north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.) may possess and land up to the following cumulative limits: 110 lb (50 kg) dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 pounds (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed and up to 2 additional halibut in excess of the 110-pounds-per-1,000-pound ratio per landing. “Dressed” halibut in this area means halibut landed eviscerated with their heads on. Halibut taken and retained in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis may only be landed north of Pt. Chehalis and may not be possessed or landed south of Pt. Chehalis

    [FR Doc. 2016-06908 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150818742-6210-02] RIN 0648-XE528 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Inseason Adjustment to the 2016 Gulf of Alaska Pollock Seasonal Apportionments AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is adjusting the 2016 seasonal apportionments of the total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by re-apportioning unharvested pollock TAC in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA. This action is necessary to provide opportunity for harvest of the 2016 pollock TAC, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 23, 2016, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA to reflect the underharvest of pollock in those areas during the A season. In addition, any underharvest remaining beyond 20 percent of the originally specified seasonal apportionment in a particular area may be further apportioned to other statistical areas. Therefore, NMFS also is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock to Statistical Areas 610 and 630 based on the underharvest of pollock in Statistical Areas 620 of the GOA. These adjustments are described below.

    The B seasonal apportionment of the 2016 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 3,826 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the B season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 765 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 610 and 620 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 4,591 mt (3,826 mt plus 765 mt).

    The B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 50,747 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 10,149 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 60,896 mt (50,747 mt plus 10,149 mt).

    The B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 5,083 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 1,016 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 and 630 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 6,099 mt (5,083 mt plus 1,016 mt).

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 18, 2016.

    The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06916 Filed 3-23-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 59 Monday, March 28, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2011-1068; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-189-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require installing an automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable; installing a placard in the airplane flight deck if necessary; replacing the P5-2 fuel system module assembly; installing the “uncommanded ON” (UCO) protection system for the fuel boost pumps; revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped with an automatic shutoff system; and revising the maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. The NPRM was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This action revises the NPRM by proposing to require updated or additional actions that are necessary for certain airplane configurations. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent operation of the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps with continuous low pressure, which could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel pump inlet that could create a potential ignition source inside the center and auxiliary fuel tanks. These conditions, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For Boeing service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    For BAE Systems service information identified in this SNPRM, contact BAE Systems, Attention: Commercial Product Support, 600 Main Street, Room S18C, Johnson City, NY 13790-1806; phone: 607-770-3084; fax: 607-770-3015; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems-ps.com/customersupport.

    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. The referenced Boeing service bulletins are also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2011-1068.

    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-2011-1068; 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:

    Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-1068; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-189-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63229) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require installing an automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable; installing a placard in the airplane flight deck if necessary; replacing the P5-2 fuel system module assembly; installing the UCO protection system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable; revising the airplane flight manual to advise the flightcrew of certain operating restrictions for airplanes equipped with an automatic shutoff system; and revising the maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements.

    Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we learned of certain inadequacies in the referenced service information. Boeing has since developed, and we have approved, revised service information. We have determined it is necessary to mandate the revised service information, which includes additional actions necessary for airplanes in certain configurations.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, dated August 2, 2010; Revision 1, dated May 13, 2011; and Revision 2, dated October 25, 2012. The service information describes procedures for replacing the P5-2 fuel system module assembly for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 airplanes.

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, dated July 29, 2010; Revision 1, dated March 26, 2012; Revision 2, dated November 12, 2012; and Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing an automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tank boost pumps for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes.

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, dated August 2, 2010; Revision 1, dated July 18, 2011; and Revision 2, dated September 23, 2014. The service information describes procedures for installing a UCO protection system for the center and auxiliary fuel boost pumps for Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 airplanes.

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, dated August 2, 2010; and Revision 1, dated June 28, 2012. The service information describes procedures for installing an automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tank boost pumps for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes.

    We also reviewed Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014, contains AWLs 28-AWL-21, 28-AWL-22, 28-AWL-24, and 28-AWL-25 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C airplanes, and AWLs 28-AWL-20, 28-AWL-21, 28-AWL-23, and 28-AWL-24 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes, which are airworthiness limitation instructions for an operational check of the installed automatic shutoff system.

    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 comment on the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, submitted its support for the NPRM.

    Request To Match Compliance Times

    Japan Transocean Air requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD to extend the compliance time from 36 months to 60 months to match the compliance time specified in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM). The commenter noted that the service information specified in paragraph (m) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) recommends the concurrent accomplishment of the actions specified in paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD. The commenter asserted that requiring the same compliance time (60 months) for paragraphs (g), (h), and (m) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) would prevent complications associated with different configurations.

    We disagree that it is necessary to revise the compliance time as requested. We infer that the commenter has assumed that all of those actions must be done at the same maintenance visit. As the commenter stated, the “concurrent” actions (in paragraph (g)(3) of this proposed AD) are to be done “before or at the same time as” the actions required by paragraph (m) of this proposed AD. We have determined that the compliance time for the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD is necessary to ensure an adequate level of safety. We have further determined that doing the actions required by paragraph (m) of this proposed AD later than the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(3) of this proposed AD would not affect safety, and would not affect the airplane configuration in a way that would complicate accomplishment of the proposed AD requirements for the fleet. In light of the identified unsafe condition, the proposed requirements, and the manufacturer's recommendations, we have determined that no change to this proposed AD is warranted regarding this issue.

    Request To Require Two Placards

    Japan Transocean Air requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) to require the installation of two placards, instead of one, adjacent to the primary flight displays. The commenter stated that both pilots operate the fuel pumps, and placards are therefore necessary for both pilots' primary flight displays.

    We partially agree with the request. The intent of this SNPRM is to ensure that the placard is visible to both pilots. Although we have determined that two placards are not necessary to achieve that goal, operators may choose to install an additional placard or use a different location, if approved by an appropriate FAA principal operations inspector. We have revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD to specify these options.

    Request To Correct Service Information Specifications

    Boeing requested certain corrections to the referenced service information. Since that comment was submitted, Boeing has included these corrections in the revised service information that is referenced in this SNPRM. Therefore, no additional change to this SNPRM is necessary.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Service Information.”

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Where service information referenced in this proposed AD specifies that certain operators may contact the manufacturer for modification instructions, this proposed AD would require those operators to do the modification in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014, specifies a 24-month compliance time to accomplish the actions specified in that service information. However, paragraph (g) of this proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in that service information within 36 months. We have determined this compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 499 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on
  • U.S. operators
  • Install auto shutoff protection for Model 737-100, -200, -200C airplanes (82 airplanes) Between 92 and 155 work-hours × $85 per hours = Between $7,820 and $13,175 1 Between $10,792 and $15,548 1 Between $18,612 and $28,723 1 Between $1,526,184 and $2,355,286.1 Install auto shutoff protection for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 airplanes (417 airplanes) Between 92 and 152 work-hours × $85 per hours = Between $7,820 and $12,920 1 Between $9,869 and $16,236 1 Between $17,689 and $29,156 1 Between $7,376,313 and $12,158,052.1 Install P5-2 module 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $42,415. Install UCO protection (499 airplanes) Between 38 and 67 work-hours × $85 per hours = Between $3,230 and $5,6951 Between $3,742 and $4,861 1 Between $6,972 and $10,556 1 Between $3,479,028 and $5,267,444.1 Revise aircraft flight manual 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $42,415. Revise Maintenance Program 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $42,415. 1 Depending on group.
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-1068; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-189-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements of AD 2001-08-24, Amendment 39-12201 (66 FR 20733, April 25, 2001).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD affects all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent operation of the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps with continuous low pressure, which could lead to friction sparks or overheating in the fuel pump inlet that could create a potential ignition source inside the center and auxiliary fuel tanks. These conditions, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Automatic Shutoff System for the Center and Auxiliary Tank Fuel Boost Pumps

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. If a placard has been previously installed on an airplane, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, the placard may be removed from the flight deck of only that airplane after the automatic shutoff system has been installed, as specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, in Groups 2 through 19, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, Revision 1, dated June 28, 2012: Install the automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tank boost pumps, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, Revision 1, dated June 28, 2012. For airplanes that do not have airstairs, accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, dated August 2, 2010, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, provided markers are installed on the J2802 Box for “POS 1” and “POS 2” within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, Revision 1, dated June 28, 2012.

    (2) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes in Group 1, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1228, Revision 1, dated June 28, 2012: Install the automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tank boost pumps, as applicable, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.

    (3) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes in Groups 1 through 31, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014: Install the automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary fuel tank boost pumps, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, Revision 3, dated July 16, 2014. For airplanes that do not have airstairs: Accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, dated July 29, 2010, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, provided markers are installed on the J2802 Box for “POS 1” and “POS 2” within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, Revision 1, dated March 26, 2012; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1216, Revision 2, dated November 12, 2012.

    (h) Concurrent Installation of P5-2 Fuel System Module Assembly

    Before or concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, dated August 2, 2010, or Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, Revision 1, dated May 13, 2011, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, provided that for any original P5-2 Fuel System Module P/N 69-37335-129 installed that has been reworked as specified in BAE Systems Service Bulletin 69-37335-28-04, Revision 2, dated February 10, 2010, the P/N marking is etched/scribed or labeled as P/N 69-37335-2129, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes in Group 2, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2012: Replace the P5-2 fuel system module assembly with a modified or new P5-2 fuel system module assembly having a new part number, in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2012.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD:

    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2012, refers to BAE Systems Service Bulletin 69-37335-28-04 as an additional source of guidance for modifying and updating the existing P5-2 fuel system module assembly part numbers.

    (2) For airplanes in Group 1, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-28A1210, Revision 2, dated October 25, 2012, replace the P5-2 fuel system module assembly, as applicable, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.

    (i) Concurrent Installation of a Placard for Mixed Fleet Operation

    Concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, install a placard adjacent to the pilot's primary flight display on all airplanes in the operator's fleet not equipped with an automatic shutoff system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable. The placard must include the statement in figure 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD. Optionally, the placard may include alternative text or be installed in a different location, or an additional placard may be installed, if approved by an appropriate FAA principal operations inspector. Installing an automatic shutoff system on an airplane, in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, terminates the placard installation required by this paragraph for only that airplane.

    EP28MR16.016 (j) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revisions for Airplanes Without Boeing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

    For airplanes without Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Revise Section 1 of the Limitations section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM to include the statement in figure 2 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 2 to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.

    EP28MR16.017

    (2) Revise Section 3 of the Normal Procedures section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM to include to include the text specified in figure 3 to paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Alternative statements that meet the intent of the following requirements may be used if approved by an appropriate FAA principal operations inspector.

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EP28MR16.018 (k) AFM Revisions for Airplanes With Boeing Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

    For airplanes with Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Revise Section 1 of the Limitations section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM to include the text specified in figure 4 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. When a statement identical to that in figure 4 to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed from the AFM.

    EP28MR16.019

    (2) Revise Section 3 of the Normal Procedures section of the applicable Boeing 737 AFM to include the text specified in figure 5 to paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Alternative statements that meet the intent of the following requirements may be used if approved by an appropriate FAA principal operations inspector.

    EP28MR16.020 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C (l) Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Revision for Automatic Shutoff System

    Concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating the AWLs specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), (l)(3), and (l)(4) of this AD, as applicable. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in the applicable AWLs is within 1 year after accomplishment of the installation required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes without Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks installed: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (2) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes with Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks installed: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-21 and AWL No. 28-AWL-22 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (3) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes without Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks installed: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (4) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes with Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks installed: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-20 and AWL No. 28-AWL-21 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (m) Installation of Un-Commanded ON (UCO) Protection System

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do the actions required by paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

    (1) For airplanes in Groups 2 through 13, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2014: Install the UCO protection system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2014. For airplanes with enlarged J2802 box assembly relay cutouts to fit the body of relays R3334, R3336, R3338, or R3340, with BACS12HN08-10 screws for the installation of the relays as specified in Information Notice 737-28A1227 IN 05: Accomplishment of the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, dated August 2, 2010, or Revision 1, dated July 18, 2011, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph, provided markers are installed that identify the function of the switches installed on the J2802 box within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with figure 1 or figure 5, as applicable, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2014.

    (2) For airplanes in Group 1, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-28A1227, Revision 2, dated September 23, 2014: Install the UCO protection system for the center and auxiliary tank fuel boost pumps, as applicable, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.

    (n) AWLs Revision for UCO Protection System

    Concurrently with accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (m) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating the AWLs specified in paragraphs (n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3), and (n)(4) of this AD, as applicable. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in applicable AWLs is within 1 year after accomplishment of the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes without Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-24 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (2) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes with Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-24 and AWL No. 28-AWL-25 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (3) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes without Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (4) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes with Boeing auxiliary fuel tanks: Incorporate AWL No. 28-AWL-23 and AWL No. 28-AWL-24 of Section C, “Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations,” of Section 9 of the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6-38278-CMR, Revision June 2014.

    (o) No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishment of the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (l) and (n) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used unless the inspections or inspection intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (r) of this AD.

    (p) Method of Compliance for Paragraph (l) of This AD

    Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-21 and No. 28-AWL-22 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes; and AWLs No. 28-AWL-20 and No. 28-AWL-21 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes; in accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of AD 2008-10-09 R1, Amendment 39-16148 (74 FR 69264, December 31, 2009), is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding AWL incorporation required by paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (q) Method of Compliance for Paragraph (a) of AD 2001-08-24, Amendment 39-12201 (66 FR 20733, April 25, 2001)

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (l) of this AD, and paragraph (j) or (k) of this AD as applicable, is an acceptable method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 2001-08-24, Amendment 39-12201 (66 FR 20733, April 25, 2001).

    (r) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (s)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (s) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6498; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. For BAE Systems service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems, Attention: Commercial Product Support, 600 Main Street, Room S18C, Johnson City, NY 13790-1806; phone: 607-770-3084; fax: 607-770-3015; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.baesystems-ps.com/customersupport. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-04966 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5284; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-006-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect installation instructions of the torlon plates in the airplane maintenance manual resulting in the incorrect installation of the torlon plates in the forward wing-to-fuselage attachment. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review 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.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5284; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-5284; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-006-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD No.: 2016-0037, dated February 26, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Incorrect installations of torlon plates in the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachment were reported on aeroplanes in service. Investigation determined that wrong torlon plate installation instructions were published in June 2007 in Revision (Rev.) 18 to 27 of the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 02049, Data Module (DM) 12-A-57-00-00A-520A-A and DM 12-A-57-00-00A-720A-A, for the PC-12, PC-12/45 and PC-12/47 aeroplanes, and in the initial issue to Rev. 10 of AMM 02300, in DM 12-B-57-00-00A-520A-A and DM 12-B-57-00-00A-720A-A, for PC-12/47E aeroplanes.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to additional loads at the wing-to-fuselage interface, which detrimentally affects the fatigue life of the structural joint.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 57-007 to provide inspection instructions to verify the correct installation of torlon plates in the wing-to-fuselage attachments, and the rectification instructions for incorrect installed torlon plates.

    For the reason described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachments, both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5284.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Limited has issued PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007, dated September 29, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the installation of the torlon plates in the wing-to-fuselage attachment fittings and, if necessary, instructions to install them in the correct sequence. 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 NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 268 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per wing 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 the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,560, or $170 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours per wing and require parts costing $1,000 per wing, for a total cost of $2,510 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2016-5284; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-006-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all serial numbers delivered before January 1, 2015, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    The date of delivery may be found as the issue date of the EASA Form 52, which is part of the airplane records.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as incorrect installation instructions of the torlon plates in the airplane maintenance manual resulting in the incorrect installation of the torlon plates in the forward wing-to-fuselage attachment. We are issuing this AD to identify and correct incorrectly installed torlon plates which could cause additional loads affecting the fatigue life at the wing-to-fuselage interface.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this AD. If paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD have already been done before the effective date of this AD, then only paragraph (f)(4) of this AD applies.

    (1) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled or replaced between June 2007 and the effective date of this AD: Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the torlon plates in the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachments (both left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) sides) for correct installation following the accomplishment instructions in PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007, dated September 29, 2015.

    (2) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled or replaced, between June 2007 and the effective date of this AD: If an incorrect installation of the torlon plates is found during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, remove the affected torlon plates, visually inspect the torlon plates and the affected lugs using a mirror and light source (if necessary) for any damage, and reinstall the torlon plates in the correct sequence, following the accomplishment instructions in paragraph 3.C. of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007, dated September 29, 2015.

    (3) For any airplane that has had a wing removed and reinstalled or replaced, between June 2007 and the effective date of this AD: If any damage is found during the inspection of the torlon plates and lugs required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD. for FAA-approved repair instructions and accomplish those instructions accordingly. You may find contact information for PILATUS AIRCRAFT, LTD. in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (4) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, do not install or re-install a wing on any airplane, unless concurrent with the wing installation, the torlon plates of the forward lower wing-to-fuselage attachment (both LH and RH sides) of the airplane are inspected and found to be installed correctly in accordance with the accomplishment instructions in paragraph 3.B. of PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 57-007, dated September 29, 2015.

    Note 2 to paragraph (f)(4) of this AD:

    Installation of a wing on an airplane in accordance with the instructions of PILATUS aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) 02049, Revision 28 or later, or AMM 02300, Revision 11 or later, is an acceptable alternative method to comply with this inspection requirement.

    (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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

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

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2016-0037, dated February 26, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5284. For service information related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review 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.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 18, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06818 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4878; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-001-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for various aircraft equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a design change of the engine cylinder head temperature sensor without a concurrent revision of the engine model designation, the engine part number, or the cockpit indication to the pilot. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

    Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4878; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-4878; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-001-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0240, dated December 18, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    A design change of the engine cylinder heads was introduced by BRP-Powertrain in March 2013 which modifies the engine/aircraft interfaces by substituting the previous cylinder head temperature (CHT) measurement (limit temperature 135 °C/150 °C) with a coolant temperature (CT) measurement (limit temperature 120 °C). The design change was communicated on 15 May 2013 by BRP-Powertrain Service Instruction (SI) 912-020R7/914-022R7 (single document) but was not identified by a change of the engine model designation or of the engine P/N, but only through the cylinder head P/N and the position of the temperature sensor.

    Consequently, engines with the new cylinder heads (installed during production or replaced in-service during maintenance) may be installed on an aircraft without concurrent modification of that aircraft, instructions for which should be provided by the Type Certificate (TC) holder or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) holder, as applicable. In this case, the coolant temperature with a maximum engine operating limit of 120 °C (valid for engines operated with water diluted glycol coolant) is displayed on a CHT indicator with a typical limit marking (red radial/range) of more than 120 °C.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, will prevent the pilot to identify coolant limit exceedances, with subsequent loss of coolant (120 °C is the boiling temperature of the coolant), which could lead to engine in-flight shut-down, possibly resulting in a forced landing, with consequent damage to the aircraft and injury to occupants.

    BRP-Powertrain published revised SI-912-020R8/914-022R8 to clarify that, on the new cylinder heads, the coolant temperature, instead of the cylinder head temperature in the aluminium, is measured. EASA issued SIB 2014-34 to raise awareness that installation of affected engines and spare parts, without concurrent incorporation of aircraft TC/STC holder approved modifications, and even if unintended and unnoticed by production or maintenance, constitutes an unapproved aircraft modification.

    Since EASA published the SIB, further investigation has finally determined that sufficient reason exists to warrant AD action.

    For the reason stated above, this AD requires a one-time inspection to determine the actual engine configuration and, depending on findings, engine reidentification and (depending on TC or STC holder installation) modification of the affected aircraft. This also affects engines that are operated with waterless coolant.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4878. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG has issued Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912-068 and SB-914-049 (co-published as one document), dated April 16, 2015. The service information describes procedures for re-identifying the engine that has new cylinder heads, part numbers 413235 and 413236 installed. 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 NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 65 products of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the engine re-identification requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the engine installation modification to indicate a Maximum Coolant Temperature requirement of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,525, or $85 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the cylinder head replacement option of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $2,500 to replace a single engine cylinder head.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,627.50 per engine cylinder head.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: Various Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2016-4878; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-001-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 12, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all serial numbers of the airplanes listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD, that are:

    (1) Equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine with a part number (P/N) 413235 or 413236 cylinder head installed in position 2 or 3; and

    (2) certificated in any category.

    Table 1 of Paragraph (c)—Affected Airplanes Type certificate holder Aircraft model Engine model Aeromot-Indústria Mecânico-Metalúrgica Ltda AMT-200 912 A2 Diamond Aircraft Industries HK 36 R “SUPER DIMONA” 912 A DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES GmbH HK 36 TS and HK 36 TC 912 A3 Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc DA20-A1 912 A3 HOAC-Austria DV 20 KATANA 912 A3 Iniziative Industriali Italiane S.p.A Sky Arrow 650 TC 912 A2 SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH SF 25C 912 A2, 912 A3 (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine—Reciprocating.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by design change of the engine cylinder head temperature sensor without a concurrent revision of the engine model designation, the engine part number, or the cockpit indication to the pilot. The sensor now measures the coolant temperature rather than the cylinder head temperature. If the engine coolant temperature with a maximum engine operating limit of 120 °C is displayed on a Cylinder Head Temperature indicator with a typical limit marking greater than 120 °C, the pilot will be unable to identify coolant temperature limit exceedances. This could result in loss of coolant, which could cause an inflight engine shutdown and forced landing.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, for engines with cylinder heads listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD installed on both position 2 and position 3, change the engine model designation on the engine type data plate to include a “-01” suffix following paragraph 3.1.1) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912-068 and SB-914-049 (co-published as one document), dated April 16, 2015.

    (2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, for engines with only one cylinder head listed paragraph (c)(1) of this AD installed in a position 2 or 3, in order to keep such cylinder installed, you must replace the cylinder head installed on the unchanged position (2 or 3, as applicable) with a cylinder head having a P/N listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and change the engine model designation on the engine type data plate to include a “-01” suffix following paragraph 3.1.1) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912-068 and SB-914-049 (co-published as one document), dated April 16, 2015.

    (3) Before further flight after doing the required actions in paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD as applicable, modify the aircraft and related documentation to indicate a Maximum Coolant Temperature limit of 120 °C using FAA-approved procedures.

    (i) Such procedures can be found by contacting your aircraft type certificate holder or the FAA contact specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The service documents referenced in paragraph (h) of this AD are examples of FAA-approved procedures for the applicable aircraft.

    (ii) These re-identified engines remain eligible for installation on approved aircraft-engine combinations.

    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any other P/N cylinder head unless that installation is done following approved instructions provided by BRP-Powertrain at the address provided in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0240, dated December 18, 2015; Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Service Bulletin SB-912-066 R1/SB-914-047 R1 (published as one document), Revision 1, dated April 23, 2015; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Optional Service Bulletin OSB 36-111, dated September 17, 2015; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-OSB 36-111, dated September 17, 2015; Diamond Aircraft Service Bulletin No.: DA20-72-04, dated January 22, 2015; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Optional Service Bulletin OSB 20-066, dated September 17, 2015; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-OSB 20-066, dated September 17, 2015; and Scheibe Aircraft GmbH Service Information 02/14-1, dated December 15, 2014, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4878. For service information related to this AD, contact BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet: http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review 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.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 10, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06279 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3] Proposed Revocation of Class D Airspace; North, SC AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to remove Class D Airspace at North, SC, as the North Air Force Auxiliary Field Air Traffic Control Tower is no longer staffed, and controlled airspace is no longer required. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management in North, SC.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg. Ground Floor Rm. W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would remove Class D airspace at North Air Force Auxiliary Field, North, SC.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-1074; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class D airspace at North Air Force Auxiliary Field, North, SC. The air traffic control tower is no longer in use. Therefore, the airspace is no longer necessary.

    Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment:

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f),106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO SC D North, SC [Removed] Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 15, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06842 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3937; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-1] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Amendment of Class C Airspace; Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify the Syracuse Hancock International Airport Class C airspace area by removing a cutout from the surface area that was put in place to accommodate operations at an airport that is now permanently closed.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3937 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Syracuse, NY, Class C airspace area to maintain efficient airport operations.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3937 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-3937 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Syracuse Hancock International Airport Class C airspace area by removing a cutout from the Class C surface area that excludes the airspace within a 0.75-nautical mile radius of the former Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport. The sole purpose of the exclusion was to allow aircraft to operate freely to and from that airport without the need to contact air traffic control (ATC). Since the former airport is now permanently closed, the purpose for the exclusion no longer exists; therefore, the FAA is proposing to remove the words “. . . excluding that airspace within a 0.75-mile radius of Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport . . . ;” as well as the words “Michael Field/Onondaga Flight School Airport, NY (lat. 43°10′45″ N., long. 76°07′29″ W.),” from the Class C airspace description.

    Class C airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace description listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015 and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 4000 Subpart C—Class C Airspace. AEA NY C Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY Syracuse Hancock International Airport, NY (Lat. 43°06′40″ N., long. 76°06′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,400 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Syracuse Hancock International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,600 feet MSL to and including 4,400 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of Syracuse Hancock International Airport from the 248° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 118° bearing from the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 2,700 feet MSL to and including 4,400 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius from the 118° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 188° bearing from the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL to and including 4,400 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport from the 188° bearing from the airport clockwise to the 248° bearing from the airport.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06833 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0742; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-5] Proposed Establishment of Class D and E Airspace; Brookshire, TX AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class D and Class E airspace at Brookshire, TX. The establishment of an airport traffic control tower has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the airspace at Houston Executive Airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0742; Docket No. 14-ASW-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class D and Class E airspace at Houston Executive Airport, Brookshire, TX.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0742/Airspace Docket No. 14-ASW-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Central Service Center, Operation Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class D airspace, and Class E surface area airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport, excluding that airspace west and northwest, to accommodate the establishment of an airport traffic control tower. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface would be established within a 6.6-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and E airspace areas are published in Section 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D, and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW TX D Brookshire, TX [New] Houston Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 29°48′18″ N., long. 95°53′52″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29°46′44″ N., long. 95°58′06″ W., to lat. 29°47′35″ N., long. 95°55′49″ W., to lat. 29°51′55″ N., long. 95°55′52″ W., thence clockwise along the 4-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ASW TX E2 Brookshire, TX [New] Houston Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 29°48′18″ N., long. 95°53′52″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29°46′44″ N., long. 95°58′06″ W., to lat. 29°47′35″ N., long. 95°55′49″ W., to lat. 29°51′55″ N., long. 95°55′52″ W., thence clockwise along the 4-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport, to the point of beginning. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth. ASW TX E5 Brookshire, TX [New] Houston Executive Airport, TX (Lat. 29°48′18″ N., long. 95°53′52″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Houston Executive Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on March 16, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06839 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7488; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-19] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Roswell, NM AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roswell, NM. This action is necessary due to advances Global Positioning System (GPS) capabilities and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures at Roswell International Air Center, Roswell, NM. Additionally, this proposal would remove Class E airspace designated as an extension at Roswell International Air Center. This action would also update the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-7488; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Roswell International Air Center, Roswell, NM.

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-7488/Airspace Docket No. 15-ASW-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Roswell International Air Center, Roswell, NM, due to amendment and cancellation of the standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) at the airport. Advances in GPS capabilities and implementation of RNAV procedures at Roswell International Air Center (formerly Roswell Industrial Air Center) have made this action necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in SIAP at the airport. Additionally, this action removes Class E surface area airspace designated as an extension at the airport. The airport name and geographic coordinates would be amended for the Class D and E airspace areas noted above.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASW NM D Roswell, NM [Amended] Roswell International Air Center, NM (Lat. 33°18′06″ N., long. 104°31′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 6,200 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Roswell International Air Center. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas. ASW NM E2 Roswell, NM [Amended] Roswell International Air Center, NM (Lat. 33°18′06″ N., long. 104°31′50″ W.)

    Within a 5-mile radius of Roswell International Air Center. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. ASW NM E4 Roswell, NM [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW NM E5 Roswell, NM [Amended] Roswell International Air Center, NM (Lat. 33°18′06″ N., long. 104°31′50″ W.) Chisum VORTAC (Lat. 33°20′15″ N., long. 104°37′17″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Roswell International Air Center, and within 1.7 miles each side of the Chisum VORTAC 278° radial extending from the 7.4-mile radius of the airport to 11 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 16, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06836 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15] Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Charlottesville, VA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA, as the Azalea Park Non-Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. Also, the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status would be removed from this airspace. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the above airport and the University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport in Class D and E airspace listed in this proposal. This action would enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in the area.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class D airspace, Class E Surface Area Airspace, Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-8304; Airspace Docket No. 15-AEA-15.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace, Class E Surface Area Airspace, Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA. The Azalea Park NDB has been decommissioned requiring airspace reconfiguration at the airport. This action also proposes to update the geographic coordinates of the airport and University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport, and eliminate the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Charlottesville, VA.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AEA VA D Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,100 MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. AEA VA E2 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-mile radius of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. AEA VA E4 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.2 miles each side of the 202° bearing from Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 6-miles southwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AEA VA E5 Charlottesville, VA [Amended] Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA (Lat. 38°08′23″ N., long 78°27′08″ W.) University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport (Lat. 38°01′52″ N., long 78°29′54″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the University of Virginia Medical Center Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 15, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06845 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2014-0944] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone, Escorted Vessels; Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent security zone within Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound's Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone on the waters in the vicinity of escorted vessels. This security zone would be enforced around any escorted vessel in the Sector Long Island Sound COTP Zone in order to protect the vessel and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2014-0944 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Ian M. Fallon, U.S. Coast Guard Waterways Management Division Sector Long Island Sound; telephone (203) 468-4565, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR  Code of Federal Regulations DHS  Department of Homeland Security NPRM  Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On occasion, the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone has vessels enter its zone that require the implementation of heightened security measures for the protection of the vessel and the public.

    The purpose of this rulemaking to protect the vessel and the public from destruction, loss, or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, or other malicious acts of a similar nature.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a security zone in all navigable waters within the Sector Long Island Sound COTP Zone, extending from the surface to the bottom, within a 500-yard radius of any escorted vessel.

    While this security zone is being enforced, no person or vessel would be allowed to enter or remain in it without the permission of the COTP or the designated representative.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking would not be a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The security zone area covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways, waterway users may transit around the area, and mariners may request permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated representative to transit the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves establishing a security zone and maybe categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.155 to read as follows:
    § 165.155 Security Zone, Escorted Vessels, Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable waters within the Sector Long Island Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, extending from the surface to the bottom, within a 500-yard radius of any escorted vessel.

    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    (1) Escorted Vessel. “Escorted vessel” as used in this section means any vessels deemed to be in need of escort protection by the COTP for security reasons.

    (2) Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

    (3) Official Patrol Vessels. “Official patrol vessels” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations contained in § 165.33 of this part, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless previously authorized by the COTP, Sector Long Island Sound or his designated representative.

    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated representative.

    (3) No person may swim upon or below the surface of the water of this security zone unless previously authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.

    (4) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: March 8, 2016. E.J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06911 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 48 CFR Parts 609 and 649 [Public Notice: 9479] RIN 1400-AD90 Department of State Acquisition Regulation AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of State (DOS) proposes to amend the Department of State Acquisition Regulation (DOSAR) to provide procedural changes relating to the suspension and debarment process.

    DATES:

    The Department of State will accept comments on this proposed rule until May 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    E-mail: [email protected].gov. You must include the RIN in the subject line of your message.

    Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Ms. Colleen Kosar, Policy Division, Office of the Procurement Executive, A/OPE, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 1060, State Annex Number 15, Washington, DC 20520.

    • Persons with access to the Internet may view this proposed rule and submit comments by visiting the regulations.gov Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home, and searching for docket number DOS-2016-0012.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Colleen Kosar, Policy Division, Office of the Procurement Executive, A/OPE, 2201 C Street NW., Suite 1060, State Annex Number 15, Washington, DC 20520. Telephone 703-516-1685.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to update 48 CFR part 609, subpart 609.4, Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility and part 649, Termination of Contracts. Primarily, this update simplifies the procedural aspects of the suspension and debarment process, by simplifying the fact-finding process, wherein a single fact-finding official may be used in lieu of a fact-finding panel. Specifically, the proposed rule would:

    • Amend section 609.403-70 to remove the definition of “Notice,” and revise the definition of “fact-finding official.”

    • Make an editorial change to section 609.405-1.

    • Redesignate section 609.405-70 as section 649.101-70.

    • Amend section 609.406-3(a)(1) to remove references to mandated actions by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is autonomous by statute and not subject to direction from the DOSAR.

    • Make editorial changes to paragraphs 609.406-3(a)(2), (b)(2) and (c)(2).

    • Add paragraph 609.406-3(a)(3) to make it clear that the referral file may be supplemented prior to determining whether or not to propose debarment.

    • Revise paragraphs 609.406-3(b)(3)-(7) to simplify the fact-finding process, wherein a single fact-finding official may be used in lieu of a fact-finding panel and to eliminate specific entitlements and deadlines not required by the FAR.

    • Amend section 609.406-3(d) and 609.407-3(d) to remove “and to the General Services Administration in accordance with 609.404.”

    • Amend section 609.407-3(b)(2) to change “panel” to “official.”

    Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

    In accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act governing rules promulgated by federal agencies that affect the public (5 U.S.C. 552 and 553), the Department is publishing this proposed rule and inviting public comment.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This determination was based on the fact that the changes proposed in this update have no impact on small businesses. The number of small businesses considered for suspension or debarment will not grow or shrink as a result of the proposed changes. The Department analyzed the suspension/debarment actions that occurred in FY14 and no small businesses were impacted.

    Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

    This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This proposed rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets. This determination was based on the fact that the proposed changes are intended to simplify the procedural aspects of the suspension and debarment process. The proposed rule does not place new requirements on contract performance. The proposed rule does not have a significant cost or administrative impact on offerors or contractors.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Department of State does not consider this proposed rule to be an “economically significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.

    In addition, the Department is exempt from Executive Order 12866 except to the extent that it is promulgating regulations in conjunction with a domestic agency that are significant regulatory actions. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in the Executive Orders and finds that the benefits of updating this rule outweigh any costs, which the Department assesses to be minimal.

    Executive Order 13132

    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Department has determined that this proposed rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this proposed rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule imposes no new or revised information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 609 and 649

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government procurement.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State proposes to amend 48 CFR chapter 6 as follows:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 609 and 649 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a, 40 U.S.C. 121(c) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

    PART 609—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS 2. Revise section 609.403-70 to read as follows:
    609.403-70 DOSAR definitions.

    Fact-finding official means the individual designated by the debarring official to conduct additional proceedings as necessary concerning disputed material facts.

    609.405-1 [Amended]
    3. In section 609.405-1, remove “609.405-70” and add in its place “649.101-70”.
    609.405-70 [Redesignated as 649.101-70 and Amended]
    4. Redesignate section 609.405-70 as 649.101-70 and revise the heading of redesignated section 649.101-70 to read as follows:
    649.101-70 Termination action decisions after debarment.
    609.406-3 [Revised]
    5. In section 609.406-3, revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2)-(b)(7), (c)(2) and (d), to read as follows:
    609.406-3 Procedures.

    (a) Investigation and referral. (1) DOS employees aware of any cause that might serve as the basis for debarment shall refer those cases through the contracting officer to the debarring official. The debarring official shall refer to the Office of the Inspector General all reported cases that involve possible criminal or fraudulent activities for investigation by that office.

    (2) Referrals for consideration of debarment shall include, as appropriate and available—

    (i) The cause for debarment (see FAR 9.406-2);

    (ii) A statement of facts;

    (iii) Copies of supporting documentary evidence and a list of all necessary or probable witnesses, including addresses and telephone numbers, together with a statement concerning their availability to appear at a fact-finding proceeding and the subject matter of their testimony;

    (iv) A list of all contractors involved, either as principals or as affiliates, including current or last known home and business addresses and ZIP codes;

    (v) A statement of the acquisition history with such contractors;

    (vi) A statement concerning any known pertinent active or potential criminal investigation, criminal or civil court proceedings, or administrative claim before Boards of Contract Appeals; and

    (vii) A statement from each DOS organizational element affected by the debarment action as to the impact of a debarment on DOS programs.

    (3) As deemed appropriate, the debarring official may conduct investigations to supplement the information provided in the referral, or may request investigations by the Office of the Inspector General or other Department office.

    (b) * * *

    (2) In response to the debarment notice, if the contractor or its representative notifies the debarring official within 30 days after receipt of the notice that it wants to present information and arguments in person to the debarring official, that official, or a designee, shall chair such a meeting. The oral presentation shall be conducted informally and a transcript need not be made. However, the contractor may supplement its oral presentation with written information and arguments for inclusion in the administrative record.

    (3) Pursuant to FAR 9.406-3(b)(2), the contractor may request a fact-finding proceeding.

    (4) The debarring official shall designate a fact-finding official and shall provide the fact-finding official with a copy of all documentary evidence considered in proposing debarment. Upon receipt of such material, the fact-finding official shall notify the contractor and schedule a hearing date.

    (5) In addition to the purposes provided in FAR 9.406-3(b)(2), the hearing is intended to provide the debarring official with findings of fact based on a preponderance of evidence submitted to the fact-finding official and to provide the debarring official with a determination as to whether a cause for debarment exists, based on the facts as found.

    (6) The fact-finding proceeding shall be conducted in accordance with procedures determined by the fact-finding official. The rules shall be as informal as is practicable, consistent with FAR 9.406-3(b). The fact-finding official is responsible for making the transcribed record of the hearing, unless the contractor and the fact-finding official agree to waive the requirement for a transcript.

    (7) The fact-finding official shall deliver written findings and the transcribed record, if made, to the debarring official. The findings shall resolve any facts in dispute based on a preponderance of the evidence presented and recommend whether a cause for debarment exists.

    (c) * * *

    (2) When a determination is made to initiate action, the debarring official shall provide to the contractor and any specifically named affiliates written notice in accordance with FAR 9.406-3(c).

    (d) Debarring official's decision. In addition to complying with FAR 9.406-3(d) and FAR 9.406-3(e), the debarring official shall provide single copies of the decision to each DOS organizational element affected by the decision.

    609.407-3 [Amended]
    6. In section 609.407-3: a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the word “panel”, and add in its place “official”. b. In paragraph (d), remove “and to the General Services Administration in accordance with 609.404”. PART 649—TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS 7. In Part 649, add section heading 649.101 to read as follows:
    649.101 Authorities and responsibilities.
    Corey M. Rindner, Procurement Executive, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06973 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 48 CFR Parts 1817 and 1852 RIN 2700-AE28 Removal of Outdated and Duplicative Guidance (2016-N010) AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is proposing to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove duplicative language of the FAR and superseded NFS guidance. The revision is part of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed in August 2011.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before May 27, 2016 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2016-N010, using any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “NFS Case 2016-N010” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “NFS Case 2016-N010.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “NFS Case 2016-N010” on your attached document.

    Email: [email protected] Include NFS Case 2016-N010 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 358-3082.

    Mail: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Attn: Mr. Manuel Quinones, Suite 5K32, 300 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Manuel Quinones, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Suite 5K32, 300 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20456-0001.

    Telephone (202) 358-2143; facsimile 202-358-3082; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This rule proposes to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) by removing from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) those portions of the NFS containing information that consists of internal Agency administrative procedures and guidance that does not control the relationship between NASA and contractors or prospective contractors. This change is consistent with the guidance and policy in FAR Part 1 regarding what comprises the Federal Acquisition Regulations System and requires publication for public comment. NASA conducted a comprehensive review of the NFS to validate the accuracy and relevancy of its policy, guidance, and procedures. Additionally, to streamline and clarify its regulation, NASA identified a number of NFS parts and sections to be (1) deleted because of its duplication of the FAR or (2) relocated as internal Agency operating procedures to a NASA maintained Web site available on the internet at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm. During a recent review of the NFS we discovered that an extraneous provision and two inapplicable clauses had been inadvertently retained in the regulation and for which their respective prescriptions had been previously deleted during one of the NASA FAR Supplement Rewrite final rules. Accordingly, this rule proposes to remove from the CFR the duplicative provision and superseded clauses, and relocate internal Agency-specific guidance and operating procedures.

    The NFS document found on the NASA Procurement Library Web site will continue to contain both information requiring codification in the CFR and internal Agency guidance and procedures in a single document.

    II. Discussion

    NASA's proposed changes to the CFR are as follows:

    • Remove section 1817.200, as this statement is redundant.

    • Remove section 1817.204, as this section pertains to internal Agency guidance and operating procedures.

    • Remove section 1852.210-70, which is duplicative of FAR requirements and for which no prescriptive language exists.

    • Remove sections 1852.212-70 and 1852.212-74, which are superseded and for which no prescriptive language exists.

    III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because this rule proposes to remove from the CFR only information that is either considered internal Agency administrative procedures or extraneous provisions/clauses that were invalidated by previous final rules. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been performed. NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this proposed rule on small entities.

    NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (NFS case 2016-N010) in their correspondence.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1817 and 1852

    Government procurement.

    Manuel Quinones, NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

    Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1817 and 1852 are amended as follows:

    1. The authority citation for parts 1817 and 1852 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    PART 1817—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
    1817.200 and 1817.204 [Removed]
    2. Remove sections 1817.200 and 1817.204.
    PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
    1852.210-70, 1852.212-70, and 1852.212-74 [Removed]
    3. Remove sections 1852.210-70, 1852.212-70, and 1852.212-74.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06887 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1039 [Docket No. EP 704 (Sub-No. 1)] Review of Commodity, Boxcar, and Trailer-on-Flatcar/Container-on-Flatcar (TOFC/COFC) Exemptions AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB) seeks public comment on its proposal to revoke the existing class exemptions for crushed or broken stone or rip rap; hydraulic cement; and coke produced from coal, primary iron or steel products, and iron or steel scrap, wastes or tailings. The Board also invites interested parties to file, during the comment period for these proposed rules, comments regarding the possible revocation of other commodity class exemptions.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rulemaking are due on or before May 27, 2016; replies are due June 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Any filings submitted in this proceeding must be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies and also an electronic version to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 704 (Sub-No. 1), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Zimmerman at (202) 245-0386. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Services (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    In 1976, as part of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, Public Law 94-210, 90 Stat. 31, Congress gave the Board broad authority to exempt rail carriers from regulation when such regulation was not needed to protect against abuses of market power. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC or Commission) first exercised its exemption authority in Rail General Exemption Authority—Fresh Fruits & Vegetables, 361 I.C.C. 211 (1979), categorically exempting the transportation of certain fresh fruits and vegetables from its regulations.

    Congress revised the statutory exemption standard in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 1895, to provide that the agency shall exempt a person, class of persons, or a transaction or service when it finds that the application of a provision of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV (1) is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of section 10101a; and (2) either (a) the transaction or service is of limited scope, or (b) the application of the statute is not necessary to protect shippers from the abuse of market power. The exemption provision, which is now codified at 49 U.S.C. 10502,1 also provides that the agency may revoke an exemption (partially or completely) if the agency later determines that the application of the Interstate Commerce Act is necessary to carry out the Rail Transportation Policy at 49 U.S.C. 10101 (the RTP). See section 10502(d).

    1 There have been additional changes to the exemption provision since the Staggers Act with regard to the process and timing of exemption proceedings. The substantive standard, however, has remained the same.

    Pursuant to its exemption authority, the ICC, and later the Board, exempted from regulation the transportation by rail of numerous other individual commodities, finding that traffic for these individual commodities was sufficiently competitive and that railroads lacked the ability to subject shippers to an abuse of market power.2 These commodity exemptions are codified at 49 CFR 1039.10 and 1039.11. The Commission also exempted rail (and truck) operations provided in connection with trailer-on-flatcar/container-on-flatcar (TOFC/COFC) services, at 49 CFR pt. 1090,3 and the rail transportation of all commodities in single-line boxcar service, at 49 CFR 1039.14.4

    2See Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Nonferrous Recyclables, 3 S.T.B. 62 (1998); Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Pet. of AAR to Exempt Rail Transp. of Selected Commodity Groups, 9 I.C.C.2d 969 (1993); Exemption from Regulation—Rail Transp. Frozen Food, 367 I.C.C. 859 (1983); Liquid Iron Chloride, 367 I.C.C. 347 (1983); Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Miscellaneous Agric. Commodities, 367 I.C.C. 298 (1983).

    3See Improvement of TOFC/COFC Regulation, 364 I.C.C. 731 (1981); Improvement of TOFC/COFC Regulations (R.R.-Affiliated Motor Carriers & Other Motor Carriers), 3 I.C.C.2d 869 (1987); Improvement of TOFC/COFC Regulations (Pickup & Delivery), 6 I.C.C.2d 208 (1989).

    4See Exemption from Regulation—Boxcar Traffic, 367 I.C.C. 425 (1983); Exemption from Regulation—Boxcar Traffic, 367 I.C.C. 747 (1983), Exemption from Regulation—Boxcar Traffic, 3 I.C.C.2d 23 (1986). See also Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

    February 2011 Hearing

    The agency's exemption decisions were instrumental in the U.S. rail system's transition from a heavily regulated, financially weak component of the economy into a mature, healthy industry that operates with limited oversight. However, more than 30 years have passed since many of the commodity exemptions were adopted, and there have been many changes in the railroad industry over that period. In more recent years, the Board received informal inquiries questioning the relevance or necessity of some of the existing commodity exemptions. The Board, therefore, requested public comment and held a public hearing in February 2011 to explore the continued utility of, and the issues surrounding, the various commodity exemptions under 49 CFR 1039.10 and 1039.11, the boxcar exemption under 49 CFR 1039.14, and the TOFC/COFC exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1090. The Board encouraged interested parties to address the effectiveness of the exemptions in the marketplace, whether the rationale behind any of these exemptions should be revisited, and whether the exemptions should be subject to periodic review.

    The Board received written comment from numerous parties representing a diverse group of stakeholders including railroads, shippers, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Twenty-one individuals testified at the hearing. The Board has considered those written comments and the oral testimony in developing the proposal discussed below.

    Proposed Rule

    As discussed above, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), the Board may revoke an exemption, in whole or in part, when it finds that regulation is necessary to carry out the RTP. After considering the oral testimony and written comments, waybill rate data for years 1992 through 2013,5 and other industry information, the Board now proposes to revoke the commodity exemptions for the following Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC) groups: STCC No. 14-2, crushed or broken stone or rip rap; STCC No. 29-914, coke produced from coal; STCC No. 33-12, primary iron or steel products (plates, pipes, and rods); STCC No. 32-4, hydraulic cement; and STCC No. 40-211, iron or steel scrap, wastes or tailings.6

    5 The Board reviewed a 22-year period of confidential waybill data, beginning with information filed in 1992 and ending with data filed in 2013, the most recent on file with the Board.

    6 The Standard Transportation Commodity Code is a numerical code used to identify commodities and groupings of commodities. The initial two digits represent a broad commodity grouping; subsequent numbers indicate smaller sub-groupings or individual commodities. See Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Pet. of AAR to Exempt Rail Transp. of Selected Commodity Groups, 9 I.C.C.2d 969 n.2 (1993).

    With regard to each of these commodity groups, the dynamics of the particular transportation markets appear to have changed so significantly since the exemptions were first promulgated as to warrant the application of the Interstate Commerce Act in order to carry out the Rail Transportation Policy. As discussed below, these changes point toward an increased likelihood of railroad market power for each of these specific commodity groups. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that railroad waybill rate data for these commodities shows a substantial increase in revenue from potentially captive traffic (i.e., traffic with a revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) ratio of more than 180%) over the last 22 years.7 Thus, with respect to these commodities, the Board believes that reestablishing regulatory oversight is necessary to foster sound economic conditions in transportation, 49 U.S.C. 10101(5), maintain reasonable rates where there is an absence of effective competition, section 10101(6), and prohibit predatory pricing and practices, avoid undue concentrations of market power, and prohibit unlawful discrimination, section 10101(12).

    7 R/VC ratios in excess of the market dominance threshold of 180% do not, standing alone, establish market power or an abuse of such power. Thus, the Board bases its proposal to revoke these commodity class exemptions on a variety of marketplace changes described in this notice of proposed rulemaking. However, R/VC ratios have long been used by the Board as one indication of market power, and it is appropriate to rely on this data as supporting evidence.

    The purpose of this proposal is to restore shippers' access to the Board's regulatory oversight and processes—in particular, shippers of those commodities where evidence indicates that the competitive landscape has changed significantly enough to indicate that renewed regulation is needed to carry out the RTP. The Board is committed to ensuring that stakeholders have an appropriate, meaningful path to the Board, and the proposal here is an important step towards that goal. The Board also welcomes interested parties to file comments regarding the possible revocation of other commodity class exemptions; such comments should address any marketplace changes comparable to the ones described below.

    1. STCC Nos. 14-2, Crushed or Broken Stone or Rip Rap

    In Rail General Exemption Authority—Petition of AAR to Exempt Rail Transportation of Selected Commodity Groups (Petition of AAR) 9 I.C.C.2d 969 (1993), the Commission exempted from its regulation the railroad transportation of several commodities, including crushed or broken stone or rip rap (crushed stone).8 After reviewing broad, market-share data, the Commission found that the rail transportation of crushed stone consisted of short hauls and was characterized by declining or stagnant revenue per unit of service—market characteristics not consistent with a finding of market power. Id. at 974. Thus, the Commission concluded that regulation of this commodity was not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of section 10101 because transportation was competitive, and an exemption would, among other things, minimize the need for federal regulatory control; increase competition between rail carriers and trucks by allowing quick, selective rate changes in response to competition; and allow more efficient management by allowing pricing changes in response to changing business conditions. Id. at 973.

    8 In that decision, the Commission exempted the railroad transportation of 16 other classes of commodities as well.

    In its February 2011 hearing comments, Texas Crushed Stone (TCS), a limestone quarry operator, argued that the Board should consider revoking the class exemption for crushed stone or aggregates. (TCS Comments 8.) TCS stated that the business landscape of the railroad industry had changed since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 was enacted. (Id. at 4.) TCS also claimed that intramodal competition had been reduced as a result of railroad consolidation and asserted that some railroads had abused their market power by aggressively increasing rail transportation rates. (Id. at 8.) TCS maintained that trucking was not a practical check on railroad market power as there are not enough trucks or drivers to handle the volumes it had shipped in the past. (Id. at 5.) TCS also asserted that the preponderance of its shipments were captive, as most of its customers were served by one railroad. (Id. at 5.) Accordingly, TCS requested that the Board revoke the exemptions for crushed stone so that TCS can seek regulatory relief from unfair rates and unreasonable practices. (Id. at 6.)

    When the Commission first exempted the rail transportation of this commodity group, testimony provided by witnesses on behalf of individual rail carriers indicated that this commodity group was subject to motor carrier competition because movements were often short haul in nature. Petition of AAR, 9 I.C.C.2d at 975. The Commission also found, based on data provided by AAR, that the rail market share of this commodity group was 5.4% in 1975, 4.8% in 1980, 4.0% in 1985, and 4.6% in 1990, evidencing a lack of railroad market dominance. Id. at 974. Recent information suggests that certain market dynamics may have changed significantly.

    While it appears that railroads still have a relatively small modal market share of the overall commodity group, TCS's testimony suggests that trucking does not effectively limit railroad market power with respect to this commodity group. Moreover, waybill data analysis demonstrates that the average R/VC ratio for potentially captive traffic for this commodity group increased from 232.2% in 1992 to 254.9% in 2013. Similarly, the percentage of potentially captive traffic by revenue for this commodity group during the 22-year review period increased from 14.8% in 1992 to 62.0% in 2013. These significant changes indicate that revocation of the exemption may be necessary to carry out the RTP provisions discussed above with regard to crushed or broken stone or rip rap.

    2. STCC Nos. 29-914, Coke Produced From Coal; 33-12, Primary Iron or Steel Products (Plates, Pipes, and Rods); and 40-211, Iron or Steel Scrap, Wastes, or Tailings

    In Petition of AAR, 9 I.C.C.2d at 978, the Commission also exempted from its regulation the railroad transportation of coke produced from coal, as well as primary iron or steel products. With regard to coke produced from coal, the Commission observed that there was, overall, a significant railroad market share for this commodity.9 Id. Nevertheless, based on other evidence, the ICC determined that there was product competition, intramodal competition, and depressed prices for coke. Id. For example, the ICC concluded that the average revenue per ton-mile for coke had increased at rates below inflation. Also, the American Iron and Steel Institute supported the exemption and asserted, among other things, that an exemption would reduce the administrative burden associated with tariff and contract filing. Viewing the testimony from a trade association of shippers to be especially probative, the Commission exempted the rail transportation for coke produced from coal. Id.

    9 The Board considered combined market share data for coke produced from coal and petroleum coke. AAR subsequently withdrew its request for the exemption of petroleum coke.

    In determining whether to exempt the rail transportation of primary iron or steel products, the Commission reviewed modal market share data for this commodity group. 9 I.C.C.2d at 979. The agency concluded that fluctuating railroad market shares over the course of 15 years (i.e., 40.4% (1975), 39.2% (1980), 29.7% (1985), and 37.8% (1990)) was consistent with a lack of market power. The Commission also noted that much of this traffic moved under contract. After considering the data, along with the testimony submitted from witnesses of individual railroads and a statement from the American Iron and Steel Institute supporting the exemption, the Commission exempted this class of commodities.

    A few years later, in Rail General Exemption Authority—Exemption of Ferrous Recyclables, Docket No. EP 346 (Sub-No. 35) (ICC served May 16, 1995), the Commission exempted from regulation the railroad transportation of iron or steel scrap, wastes and tailings (STCC No. 40-211). The Commission found the transportation of this commodity group to be extremely competitive. Specifically, the ICC found that intramodal competition with other railroads and intermodal competition with trucks and barges existed in many markets. Id. at 3. Also, the Commission determined that there was exceptionally strong geographic competition for this commodity group, which would further inhibit railroads from exercising market power. Id. Further, the Commission found the iron and steel scrap traffic average R/VC ratios of 139.5% in 1991 and 138.6% in 1992, more than 40 percentage points less than the Commission's statutory 180% R/VC rate threshold. Id. at 4. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that it was reasonable to assume that the majority of the individual carload R/VC ratios were also below the jurisdictional threshold. Id.

    Several changes relating to the transportation of these commodity groups suggest that railroads have greater market power today than they did when the ICC issued its exemption decisions. First, as a general matter, in the last several decades, the United States has been generating more scrap and requiring less traditional steel production in general, which has led the steelmaking industry to shift away from traditional blast furnaces towards electric arc furnaces (EAF) to convert scrap into new steel.10 This trend towards the utilization of EAFs has resulted in the movement of steel production away from the Great Lakes region to the South.11 When steel production was located primarily in the Great Lakes region, water carriage was an option for transportation—e.g., over the Great Lakes themselves—but is now less so after the migration to the South. With respect to trucking, a review of confidential waybill data for 1992 and 2013 demonstrates that the average length of haul (weighted by tons) for primary iron or steel products and iron or steel scrap has increased for non-intermodal and non-boxcar movements. For primary iron or steel products, the average length of haul has increased by 74 miles, from 652 miles to 726. Similarly, the average length of haul for iron or steel scrap has increased 114 miles, from 306 miles in 1992, to 420 miles in 2013. Although it is unknown what specific factors have contributed to such increases, this data is one indication of trucking being less competitive in today's marketplace.12 For these reasons, railroads may be enjoying more market power now than in the early 1990's over shippers in the iron and steel industry.13 We note that the submission of modal market share data over time (between railroads, trucks and barge) with regard to these commodity groups will be helpful in assessing the degree to which the geographic migration may have affected intermodal competition.

    10 John W. Miller, Times Have Changed: New Plan for a Century-Old U.S. Steel Mill, Wall Street Journal (Jan. 28, 2014), http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/01/28/times-have-changed-new-plan-for-a-century-old-u-s-steel-mill/.

    11 AMM Staff, Electric Arc Furnace Production Keeps Moving South, American Metal Market (Aug. 27, 2015, 4:12 p.m.), http://www.amm.com/Article/3483752/Electric-arc-furnace-production-keeps-moving-south.html.

    12 Trucking becomes less viable when the length of haul exceeds 500 miles because any transport over that threshold, in many instances, could not be completed in one day. Increases in the average length of haul for the above mentioned commodities is one possible indicator that there are more movements exceeding the 500-mile threshold—thereby contributing to less competitive pressure from trucking.

    13 During the Board's February 2011 proceeding, AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel), a steel producer with seven steelmaking and finishing plants in the United States, filed comments arguing that the rationale underlying many of the exemptions no longer exists or is otherwise inapplicable in today's market. According to AK Steel, due to the characteristics of its particular freight, it must ship via rail because other modes, such as truck, are not viable options. (AK Steel Comments 3.) AK Steel further notes that, in many instances, its facilities are captive to a single railroad and are subject to monopoly railroad power and market dominant pricing. (Id. at 5.)

    Similar arguments with regard to EAFs are also applicable to coke produced from coal (STCC No. 29-914). Years ago, blast furnaces in Pennsylvania, for instance, were not located far from coke sources in that same area. These short-haul distances potentially allowed for a significant volume of coke to be shipped to blast furnaces on trucks for use in the steelmaking process. However, a review of the Board's confidential waybill rate data indicates that the average length of haul for non-intermodal, non-boxcar coke produced from coal has increased by 39 miles, from 372 miles in 1992, to 411 in 2013. A 39-mile increase in the average length of haul is consistent with more transportation movements exceeding 500 miles in 2013 than in 1992, which supports the Board's concern that there is less competition from the trucking industry to transport this commodity.

    We are aware that, in one rate reasonableness case, the complaining shipper requested that the exemption for coke be partially revoked. See FMC Wyo. Corp. v. Union Pac. R.R., NOR 42022 et al., slip op. at 13 n.17 (STB served May 12, 2000). Although the Board found that there was not sufficient evidence to revoke the exemption for coke at that time, more recent quantitative findings, discussed below, lend support to the idea that the transportation market for that commodity might have changed significantly since then.

    Second, analysis of the Board's confidential waybill data further supports a conclusion that each of these commodity groups may be subject to increased market power from railroads. With regard to primary iron or steel products (STCC No. 33-12), from 1992 to 2013, the percentage of revenue that was potentially captive for primary iron or steel products doubled from 18.8% to 37.6%. Similarly, for iron and steel scrap (STCC No. 40-211), the percentage of revenue that was potentially captive doubled from 22.1% to 44.0% during this same time frame. Also, for primary iron or steel products, the average R/VC ratio for potentially captive traffic increased during the 22-year period, from 219.1% in 1992 to 236.6% in 2013. For the iron or steel scrap commodity group, the average R/VC ratio for potentially captive traffic increased by approximately four points, from 225.6% to 229.8%. Thus, the Board observes that the traffic for both primary iron or steel products and iron or steel scrap appears to be increasingly potentially captive to railroads, and that this potentially captive traffic is being charged higher R/VC ratios over time. This data suggests that railroads may be exerting increased market power over shippers of these commodities.

    Likewise, the Board's confidential waybill data for coke produced from coal indicates that the percentage of revenue that was potentially captive almost tripled from 1992 to 2013. In 1992, 20.1% of revenue was potentially captive compared to 58.9% in 2013. During that same time period, the average R/VC ratio for potentially captive coke traffic increased by approximately 23 points from 225.0% to 248.2%. Thus, it appears that coke produced from coal is becoming increasingly captive to railroads, and that the captive traffic is being charged higher R/VC ratios over time. These findings are consistent with increased market power.

    3. STCC No. 32-4, Hydraulic Cement

    In Rail General Exemption Authority—Exemption of Hydraulic Cement, EP 346 (Sub-No. 34) (ICC served July 26, 1995), the Commission exempted from its regulation the rail transportation of hydraulic cement. The ICC found that movements of hydraulic cement were predominantly short-haul in nature, and that railroads therefore faced pervasive competition from other railroads, from barges, and especially from trucks. Id., slip op. at 4. The Commission, consequently, determined that regulation was not necessary to carry out the RTP and that an exemption would not permit railroads to abuse market power.

    Several shippers of exempted construction commodities and a shipper organization filed comments and/or testified at the Board's February 2011 hearing.14 The Cement Shippers urged the Board to reexamine or revoke the exemptions that applied specifically to cement and construction materials. They asserted that the competitive landscape had changed significantly and that the railroad industry's financial situation had improved markedly since the adoption of the commodity exemptions. They also asserted that railroad consolidation had resulted in carriers having increased market power, enabling railroads to impose steep rate increases, and that the competitive situation was made worse by declining competition from the motor carrier industry, due to fuel prices, a shortage of drivers, and increased congestion on highways and roads.

    14 These included CEMEX, Inc. (CEMEX); Holcim (US), Inc. (Holcim); and the Portland Cement Association (PCA). CEMEX requested that the Board revoke the exemption for construction materials. Similarly, Holcim requested revoking the exemption for hydraulic cement and the materials used in the manufacture of cement. PCA requested that the Board revoke the exemption for construction materials, and more specifically, cement and fly ash. These shippers are collectively referred to as “Cement Shippers.”

    When the ICC first exempted the rail transportation of hydraulic cement, the Commission found that railroads faced pervasive competition. The ICC concluded that intermodal and intramodal competition for hydraulic cement existed in many regions—trucking was dominant, and barges and other rail carriers also competed in the marketplace. See Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Exemption of Hydraulic Cement, EP 346 (Sub-No. 34), slip op. at 4. However, changes in the rail and cement industries appear to have significantly reduced the effectiveness of competitive transportation alternatives. According to PCA, over the course of 30 years, the number of cement manufacturing plants has fallen from 179 to fewer than 100, while plant capacity, on average, has doubled. (PCA Comments 10.) Consequently, cement shippers are shipping greater distances, where trucking is not economically feasible. (Id.) On average, according to PCA, cement shipments now range between 250 to 300 miles, yet truck transportation is not an economical mode of transport beyond 100 to 125 miles. (Id. at 2) The Cement Shippers state that over 80% of cement shipments in the United States are served by a single railroad. (Id.)

    The Board's analysis of waybill data for years 1992 through 2013 reveals that R/VC ratios for hydraulic cement have trended upwards over the course of 22 years. In 1992, the R/VC ratio for potentially captive cement traffic was 208.3%, compared to 239.6% in 2013. Also, the percentage of potentially captive traffic by revenue increased from 18.9% in 1992 to 54.6% in 2013. The Board finds that increases in both the R/VC ratio for potentially captive traffic and the percentage of potentially captive traffic by revenue are possible indicators of increased railroad market power sufficient to warrant regulatory oversight. This data further supports the Board's proposal to revoke the exemption for hydraulic cement.

    Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Board proposes to revoke the exemptions, in whole, of STCC No. 14-2, crushed or broken stone or rip rap; STCC No. 29-914, coke produced from coal; STCC No. 33-12, primary iron or steel products (plates, pipes, and rods); STCC No. 40-211, iron or steel scrap, wastes or tailings; and STCC No. 32-4, hydraulic cement, because regulation of these commodities is necessary to carry out the RTP.

    The Board seeks public comment on whether the exemptions should be revoked.15 Commenters are invited to include any relevant data in support of their comments, including, but not limited to, the types of data (for example, modal market share, among other things), upon which the ICC relied in first promulgating the class exemptions now proposed to be revoked.16 The Board also invites parties to address how market conditions today differ from those that existed when the exemptions were granted and to reflect upon whether or how those changes should affect the Board's evaluation of those data sources upon which the ICC relied. Finally, as noted, the Board welcomes interested parties to file further comments regarding the possible revocation of other commodity class exemptions.

    15 We note that additional commenters addressed certain of these commodity exemptions in the February 2011 hearing proceeding. In commenting in this proceeding, parties may incorporate and supplement prior comments as appropriate.

    16See Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Pet. of AAR to Exempt Rail Transp. of Selected Commodity Groups, 9 I.C.C.2d 969 (1993); Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Exemption of Ferrous Recyclables, EP 346 (Sub-No. 35) (ICC served May 16, 1995); and Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Exemption of Hydraulic Cement, EP 346 (Sub-No. 34) (ICC served July 26, 1995).

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. Sections 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, section 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” section 605(b).

    Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).

    The rules proposed here would potentially have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, we encourage comment on any information relevant to a significant burden, if any, the proposed rules would have on small rail carriers.

    Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Considered

    The Board held a public hearing in February 2011 to explore the continued utility of, and the issues surrounding, exemptions under section 10502, specifically the various commodity exemptions under 49 CFR 1039.10 and 1039.11, the boxcar exemption under 49 CFR 1039.14, and the TOFC/COFC exemption under 49 CFR pt. 1090. The Board held the hearing because it had been many years (and, in some cases, decades) since the agency promulgated many of these commodity exemptions, and the Board had received various informal inquiries questioning the relevance and/or necessity of some of the existing commodity exemptions, given the changes in the competitive landscape and the railroad industry that have occurred in the intervening years. A more detailed description of the agency's historical deregulation of the aforementioned commodities, and the Board's reasons for considering the proposed rules are set forth above in this NPRM.

    Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    The objective of the proposed rule is to restore shippers' access to the Board's regulatory oversight and processes—in particular, shippers of those commodities where evidence indicates that the competitive landscape has changed significantly enough to indicate that renewed regulation is needed to carry out the national RTP. Specifically, the Board has concluded, based on the record in this proceeding, that renewed regulation is needed with respect to the rail transportation of (1) crushed or broken stone or rip rap; (2) hydraulic cement; and (3) coke produced from coal, primary iron or steel products, and iron or steel scrap, wastes or tailings. The legal basis for the proposed rule is 49 U.S.C. 10502(d), which gives the Board authority to revoke an exemption, in whole or in part, when it finds that regulation is necessary to carry out the RTP of 49 U.S.C. 10101.

    Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    In general, revoking the exemptions for the commodities listed above would impose on all of the nation's approximately 562 small rail carriers 17 the obligation to, among other things, provide common carrier rail transportation of those commodities upon reasonable request.

    17 The Small Business Administration's Office of Size Standards has established a size standard for rail transportation, pursuant to which a “line-haul railroad” is considered small if its number of employees is 1,500 or less, and a “short line railroad” is considered small if its number of employees is 500 or less. 13 CFR 121.201 (industry subsector 482).

    Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record

    Under the Board's proposed rules, the revocation of exemption for STCC No. 14-2, crushed or broken stone or rip rap; STCC No. 29-914, coke produced from coal; STCC No. 33-12, primary iron or steel products (plates, pipes, and rods); STCC No. 32-4, hydraulic cement; and STCC No. 40-211, iron or steel scrap, wastes would now require a carrier to comply with the Board's statutes and regulations regarding the provision of common carrier service upon reasonable request, maintenance of reasonable practices and rates, and provision of adequate service. However, regulation would not impose new reporting requirements directly or indirectly on small entities—ICCTA removed regulatory paperwork burdens (with limited exceptions) on rail carriers to file tariffs or contract summary filings for rail shipments, exempt or non-exempt. Nevertheless, the Board seeks further comment on any recordkeeping or other compliance requirements, if any, needed to conform to the proposed rules.

    Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of all Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    The Board is unaware of any duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules. The Board seeks comments and information about any such rules.

    Description of any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and That Minimize any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small Entities, Including Alternatives Considered, Such as: (1) Establishment of Differing Compliance or Reporting Requirements or Timetables That Take Into Account the Resources Available to Small Entities; (2) Clarification, Consolidation, or Simplification of Compliance and Reporting Requirements Under the Rule for Such Small Entities; (3) use of Performance Rather Than Design Standards; (4) any Exemption From Coverage of the Rule, or any Part Thereof, for Such Small Entities

    Under the proposed rule, rail carriers would be required to comply with the Board's statutes and regulations regarding the provision of common carrier service upon reasonable request, maintenance of reasonable practices and rates, and provision of adequate service. One alternative to the proposed rule would be to exempt certain or all small carriers from coverage or compliance with the rule, in whole or in part (that is, to revoke the commodity class exemptions at issue for larger carriers but keep the exemptions in place for some or all small carriers). Another alternative would be to take no action—thereby implementing no changes to the current regulatory regime. However, neither alternative would accomplish the proposed rules' objective of restoring the rail transportation of the commodities at issue to the Board's statutory and regulatory regime. Commenters should, if they advance these or any other alternatives in their comments, address how such alternatives would be consistent or inconsistent with the goals envisioned by the proposed rules.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 10502 and 13301.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1039

    Agricultural commodities, Intermodal transportation, Railroads.

    Decided: March 23, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Miller concurred with a separate expression. Commissioner Begeman dissented with a separate expression.

    Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk.
    __________ VICE CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring:

    I am pleased that the Board is taking action on this long delayed matter and, in general, I agree with the outcome to institute a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revoke the commodity exemptions listed in the decision. However, I write separately to express my frustration at the lengthy delay by the Board to take any action on this matter, and the narrow analysis that was used to reach this result.

    It has been over five years since the Board first held a hearing to examine whether any commodity exemptions should be revoked. For these five years, our stakeholders have been left in the dark as to if or when the Board would act. My hope was that, given the long wait, the Board would at least conduct a thorough and wide-ranging analysis, but as today's decision makes clear, that was not the case.

    In order to demonstrate that the commodity exemptions here warrant revocation, the Board mainly relies on two pieces of data: the change in R/VC ratios over the last two decades and the percentage of traffic moved by rail that is “potentially captive” (i.e., above 180% R/VC). While not the strongest foundation on which to propose new rules, I believe it provides a sufficient basis to move forward, which is why I support today's decision. However, I would have liked the Board to go further and provide an analysis of all other commodities that are currently exempt from regulation. Instead, the scope of the decision here is limited to just those commodities that shippers identified at the 2010 hearing (and, even then, not all of them). I see no reason why the Board could not have analyzed other commodities, even if they were not presented at the 2010 hearing.

    By the same token, the Board—without explanation—provides no analysis regarding whether commodities that are currently regulated should now be exempted. Instead, the Board chooses to look only at commodities that are already exempt. In fact, the Board's decision ignores the request from Norfolk Southern Railway (NSR) for the Board to examine four commodities that NSR claims no longer require Board regulation. After keeping our stakeholders waiting for years, a broader analysis is the least I would expect.

    As I was unsatisfied with this limited analysis, I requested the Board's Office of Economics (OE) to conduct such analyses and provide me with the results. While I would have included such analyses as part of the decision today, they would not have led me to a different outcome. In particular, based on the conclusions I have drawn from the analyses, I believe that the railroads have likely not increased market power for any exempt commodities other than those addressed in this decision.

    In addition, I requested that OE look at available data to assess whether it appears that the railroads have lost market power over any commodities that are currently regulated, including the commodities that NSR identified in its comments as part of the 2010 hearing. Based on this analysis, only a handful of commodities showed a potential loss of market power by the railroads, but they all involved too minimal an amount of traffic to warrant revising the regulations.

    For reasons I do not understand, the Board has chosen not to include this analysis as part of the decision, though in my view its inclusion would strengthen it. Based on the results of the analysis, I would not have advocated for any further revocations of commodity exemptions other than the ones listed here, nor to exempt any commodities that are currently regulated. Without the analysis though, I would not have known that was the case and I would not have felt comfortable voting to approve this decision.

    That being said, I agree with Commissioner Begeman that the record on which we are basing this decision is less than robust and could benefit from additional information. Accordingly, I understand Commissioner Begeman's concern about proceeding directly to a NPRM. However, I believe that even without additional information, there is enough of a foundation on the record that we can move forward with an NPRM. Given that our stakeholders have waited for five years for the Board to take action, I am reluctant to proceed in a fashion that will add even more time to get to a final rule. As the Board will still receive comments from stakeholders, and because we can still make changes through a supplemental NPRM if the comments indicate our conclusions were wrong, I feel that this is a better course of action than the alternatives, such as starting with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I will remain open to the idea of initiating an additional NPRM or a supplemental NPRM if we receive evidence that indicates that our conclusions with regard any commodities proposed for revocation are incorrect.

    __________ COMMISSIONER BEGEMAN, dissenting:

    This record was created over half a decade ago, before two of the three current Board members were even appointed (and my five-year term since expired). For this Board to take informed action now, we should first ask interested stakeholders to update the docket, and then propose whatever changes are necessary. And, importantly, we should commit to completing final action by a timely date certain.

    Although I appreciate the Board staff's recent review of waybill rate data from 1992 through 2013, I am not convinced that analysis sufficiently supports altering the exemption landscape. The “record” the majority is relying on to support its proposed changes is a waybill-based hunch using limited information on these commodities. Today's decision also begs the question: if waybill data are sufficient basis for a proposed rule, then why didn't the Board act years ago? Nothing in this decision suggests that the case for action has markedly changed since 2011.

    The proposed rule also fails to account for the present. Considerable and important events have taken place since the February 2011 hearing and the 2013 waybill cutoff, including the 2014 rail service crisis that impacted shippers and carriers across the country and the significant shifts in service demand for coal, oil, and other important commodities. Fuel prices have also changed dramatically. Unfortunately, today's proposed rule is completely uninformed by any of these or other current market considerations.

    The law directs the Board to exercise its exemption authority broadly, and that directive was unchanged with passage of the recent STB Reauthorization Act, P.L. 114-110. Therefore, we shouldn't narrow or revoke exemptions granted under that authority absent compelling circumstances. Instead, the majority is proposing changes without really knowing whether the revocations are justified.

    Even if a commodity is exempt, however, the Board is not uninterested. We still conduct broad oversight of exempt commodities and take action when we deem it necessary. For example, when the Board directed the carriers to provide weekly service reporting, we included reporting on intermodal and automobiles, which are exempt. The Board's Rail Shipper Transportation Advisory Council has included shippers of exempt commodities who also provide the Board with key rail service demand information. The Board's Rail Customer and Public Assistance Program also helps resolve the questions and problems of exempt commodity shippers whenever possible.

    Clearly, stakeholders have waited far too long for Board action on this docket. But we should be asking the parties to update the record so that the Board can propose an informed rule based on up-to-date information. Instead, the majority appears to be taking the path of least resistance to close a languishing docket. I dissent.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend 49 CFR part 1039 as follows:

    PART 1039—EXEMPTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 10502, 13301.

    2. Section 1039.11 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1039.11 Miscellaneous commodities exemptions.

    (a) Commodities exempted. (1) Except as indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, the rail transportation of the commodities listed below is exempt from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV. The Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC) numbers that identify the exempted commodities are those in effect on the effective date of the tariff cited, and shall embrace all commodities assigned additional digits.

    STCC No. STCC Tariff Commodity 14 1 6001-T, eff. 1-1-92 Dimension stone, quarry. 14 411 ......do Sand (aggregate or ballast). 14 412 ......do Gravel (aggregate or ballast). 20 ......do Food or kindred products except: 20 143 Grease or inedible tallow. 20 32 Canned specialties. 20 33 Canned fruits, jams, jellies, preserves or vegetables. 20 4 Grain mill products. 20 6 Sugar, beet or cane. 20 8 Beverages or flavoring extracts. 20 911 Cottonseed oil, crude or refined. 20 914 Cottonseed cake or meal or by-products. 20 92 Soybean oil or by-products. 20 93 Nut or vegetable oils or by-products. 22 ......do Textile mill products. 23 ......do Apparel or other finished textile products or knit apparel. 24 ......do Lumber or wood products. 25 ......do Furniture or fixtures. 26 ......do Pulp, paper or allied products except: 26 1 Pulp or pulp mill products. 26 211 Newsprint. 26 212 Ground wood paper, uncoated. 26 213 Printing paper, coated or uncoated, etc. 26 214 Wrapping paper, wrappers or coarse paper. 26 218 Sanitary tissue stock. 26 471 Sanitary tissues or health products. 26 6 Building paper or building board except: 26 613 Wallboard. 27 ......do Printed matter. 28 195 22-23 ......do Iron chloride, liquid. 28 195 27-30 ......do Iron sulphate. 28 195 68-69 ......do Ferrous sulphate. 29 915 ......do Distillate or residual fuel oil from coal refining. 30 ......do Rubber or miscellaneous plastics products except: 30 111 Rubber pneumatic tires or parts. 31 ......do Leather or leather products. 32 ......do Clay, concrete, glass or stone products except: 32 4 Hydraulic cement. 32 741 Lime or lime plaster. 32 95 Nonmetallic earths or minerals, ground or treated in any other manner except: 32 952 15 Cinders, clay, shale expanded shale), slate or volcanic (not pumice stone), or haydrite. 33 ......do Primary metal products, including galvanized, except: 33 12 Primary Iron or Steel Products. 34 ......do Fabricated metal products except: 34 6 Metal stampings. 34 919 40 Radioactive material shipping containers, etc. 35 ......do Machinery except: 35 11 Steam engines, turbines, turbine generator sets, or parts. 35 85 Refrigerators or refrigeration machinery or complete air-conditioning units. 36 ......do Electrical machinery, equipment or supplies except: 36 12 Power, distribution or specialty transformers. 36 21 Motors or generators. 3711 ......do Motor vehicles. 3714 ......do Motor vehicle parts or accessories. 38 ......do Instruments, photographic goods, optical goods, watches or clocks. 39 ......do Miscellaneous products of manufacturing. 41 118 6001-U, eff. 1-1-93 Used vehicles. 14 715 6001-V, eff. 1-1-94 Rock salt. 20 143 ......do Grease or Inedible Tallow. 28 133 ......do Carbon dioxide. 28 991 ......do Salt. 34 912 6001-W, eff. 1-1-95 Steel shipping containers. 33 119 6001-X, eff. 1-11-96 Blast furnace, open hearth, rolling mill or coke oven products, NEC. 20511 6001-X, eff., 1-1-96 Bread or other bakery products exc. biscuits, crackers, pretzels or other dry bakery products. See 20521-20529. 22941 ......do Textile waste, garnetted, processed, or recovered or recovered fibres or flock exc. packing or wiping cloths or rags. See 22994. 22973 ......do Textile fibres, laps, noils, nubs, roving, sliver or slubs, prepared for spinning, combed or converted. 22994 ......do Packing or wiping cloths or rags (processed textile wastes). 24293 ......do Shavings or sawdust. 30311 ......do Reclaimed rubber. 3229924 ......do Cullet (broken glass). 33312 ......do Copper matte, speiss, flue dust, or residues, etc. 33322 ......do Lead matte, speiss, flue dust, dross, slag, skimmings, etc. 33332 ......do Zinc dross, residues, ashes, etc. 33342 ......do Aluminum residues, etc. 33398 ......do Misc. nonferrous metal residues, including solder babbitt or type metal residues. 40112 ......do Ashes. 40212 ......do Brass, bronze, copper or alloy scrap, tailings, or wastes. 40213 ......do Lead, zinc, or alloy scrap, tailings or wastes. 40214 ......do Aluminum or alloy scrap, tailings or wastes. 4021960 ......do Tin scrap, consisting of scraps or pieces of metallic tin, clippings, drippings, shavings, turnings, or old worn-out block tin pipe having value for remelting purposes only. 40221 ......do Textile waste, scrap or sweepings. 40231 ......do Wood scrap or waste. 40241 ......do Paper waste or scrap. 40251 ......do Chemical or petroleum waste, including spent. 40261 ......do Rubber or plastic scrap or waste. 4029114 ......do Municipal garbage waste, solid, digested and ground, other than sewage waste or fertilizer. 4029176 ......do Automobile shredder residue. 4111434 ......do Bags, old, burlap, gunny, istle (ixtle), jute, or sisal, NEC. 41115 ......do Articles, used, returned for repair or reconditioning. 42111 ......do Nonrevenue movement of containers, bags, barrels, bottles, boxes, crates, cores, drums, kegs, reels, tubes, or carriers, NEC, empty, returning in reverse of route used in loaded movement, and so certified. 42112 ......do Nonrevenue movement of shipping devices, consisting of blocking, bolsters, cradles, pallets, racks, skids, etc., empty, returning in reverse of route used in loaded movement, and so certified. 42311 ......do Revenue movement of containers, bags, barrels, bottles, boxes, crates, cores, drums, kegs, reels, tubes, or carriers, NEC, empty, returning in reverse of route used in loaded movement and so certified.

    (2) Also excepted from this exemption are those recyclable products specifically identified by the Board at 356 I.C.C. 445-447, those commodities previously exempt, and any transportation service regarding which the Board has made a finding of market dominance. However, this exemption shall not be construed as affecting in any way the existing regulations, agreements, prescriptions, conditions, allowances or levels of compensation regarding the use of equipment, whether shipper or railroad owned or leased, including car hire, per diem and mileage allowances, and also including exemption from the anti-trust laws necessary to negotiate car service regulations or mandatory interchange of equipment or to maintain and execute such agreements. Nor shall this exemption be construed to affect existing Class III railroad “protections” in the case of boxcars.

    (b) Conditions. Carriers must continue to comply with Board accounting and reporting requirements. All railroad tariffs pertaining to the transportation of these miscellaneous commodities will no longer apply. This exemption shall remain in effect, unless modified or revoked by a subsequent order of this Board.

    [FR Doc. 2016-06956 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    81 59 Monday, March 28, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-16-0010; NOP-15-15] National Organic Program: Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of the currently approved information collection National Organic Program (NOP) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments received by May 27, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this notice. Comments must be sent to Stacy Jones King, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, National Organic Program, AMS/USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2642-S., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268 or by Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments responding to this notice should be identified with the document number AMS-NOP-16-0010; NOP-15-15. It is USDA's intention to have all comments concerning this notice, including names and addresses when provided, regardless of submission procedure used, available for viewing on the Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) Internet site. Comments submitted in response to this notice will also be available for viewing in person at USDA-AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2642-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South Building to view comments received in response to this notice are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-3252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul I. Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2642-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone: (202) 720-3252, Fax: (202) 205-7808.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Organic Program.

    OMB Number: 0581-0191.

    Expiration Date of Approval: December 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522) mandates that the Secretary develop the NOP to accredit eligible State program's governing State officials or private persons as certifying agents who would certify producers or handlers of agricultural products that have been produced using organic methods as provided for in OFPA. The USDA organic regulation (7 CFR part 205): (1) Established national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products; (2) assures consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard; and (3) facilitates interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced.

    Reporting and recordkeeping are essential to the integrity of the organic certification system. They create a paper trail that is a critical element in carrying out the mandate of OFPA and NOP. They serve the AMS mission, program objectives, and management needs by providing information on the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. The information affects decisions because it is the basis for evaluating compliance with OFPA and NOP, for administering the program, for management decisions and planning, and for establishing the cost of the program. It supports administrative and regulatory actions in response to noncompliance with OFPA and NOP.

    In general, the information collected is used by USDA, State program governing State officials, and certifying agents. It is created and submitted by State and foreign program officials, accredited certifying agents, organic inspectors, certified organic producers and handlers, those seeking accreditation or certification, and parties interested in changing the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances at sections 205.600 through 205.607. Additionally, it causes most of these entities to have procedures and space for recordkeeping.

    USDA. USDA is the accrediting authority. USDA accredits domestic and foreign certifying agents who certify domestic and foreign organic producers and handlers, using information from the agents documenting their business operations and program expertise. USDA also permits States to establish their own state organic programs after the programs are approved by the Secretary, using information from the States documenting their ability to operate such programs and showing that such programs meet the requirements of OFPA and NOP.

    States. States may operate their own organic programs. State officials obtain the Secretary's approval of their programs by submitting information to USDA documenting their ability to operate such programs and showing that such programs meet the requirements of OFPA and NOP. The Secretary, or delegated representative, will review a State organic program not less than once during each 5-year period following the date of the initial program approval. To date, one State organic program is approved by USDA.

    Certifying agents. Certifying agents are State, private, or foreign entities who are accredited by USDA to certify domestic and foreign producers and handlers as organic in accordance with OFPA and NOP. Each entity wanting to be an agent seeks accreditation from USDA by submitting information documenting its business operations and program expertise. Accredited certifying agents determine if a producer or handler meets organic requirements, using detailed information from the operation documenting its specific practices and on-site inspection reports from organic inspectors. Currently, there are 79 certifying agents accredited under NOP.

    Administrative costs for reporting, disclosure of information, and recordkeeping vary among certifying agents. Factors affecting costs include the number and size of clients, the categories of certification provided, and the type of systems maintained.

    When an entity applies for accreditation as a certifying agent, it must provide a copy of its procedures for complying with recordkeeping requirements (§ 205.504(b)(3)). Once accredited, agents have to make their records available for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Secretary (§ 205.501(a)(9)). USDA charges certifying agents for the time required to do these document reviews. Audits require less time when the documents are well organized and centrally located.

    Recordkeeping requirements for certifying agents are divided into three categories of records with varying retention periods: (1) Records created by certifying agents regarding applicants for certification and certified operations, maintain 10-years, consistent with OFPA's requirement for maintaining all records concerning activities of certifying agents; (2) records obtained from applicants for certification and certified operations, maintain 5-years, the same as OFPA's requirement for the retention of records by certified operations; and (3) records created or received by certifying agents regarding accreditation, maintain 5-years, consistent with OFPA's requirement for renewal of agent's accreditation (§ 205.510(b)).

    Organic inspectors. Inspectors, on behalf of certifying agents, conduct on-site inspections of certified operations and operations applying for certification. They report the findings from their inspection to the certifying agent. Inspectors are the agents themselves, employees of the agents, or individual contractors. We estimate that about half are certifying agents or their employees and half are individual contractors. Individuals who apply for positions as inspectors submit to the agents information documenting their qualifications to conduct such inspections. According to International Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA), there are at least 250 inspectors currently providing services.1

    1 Not all inspectors are members of IOIA.

    Producers and handlers. Producers and handlers, domestic and foreign, apply to certifying agents for organic certification, submit detailed information documenting their specific practices, provide annual updates to continue their certification, and report changes in their practices. Producers include farmers, livestock and poultry producers, and wild crop harvesters. Handlers include those who transport or transform food and include millers, bulk distributors, food manufacturers, processors, or packers. Some handlers are part of a retail operation that processes organic products in a location other than the premises of the retail outlet. Based upon AMS NOP's 2015 List of certified organic operations, there are approximately 31,000 certified operations globally.2 Based on past growth of the industry, AMS estimates the addition of 1,900 new certified organic operations a year. In addition, AMS estimates that there are 7,650 producers exempt from certification, but who must still maintain records pursuant to section 205.101(c).

    2 AMS NOP 2012 List of certified organic operations. Available at: http://apps.ams.usda.gov/nop/.

    Administrative costs for reporting and recordkeeping vary among certified operators. Factors affecting costs include the type and size of operation, and the type of systems maintained.

    AMS believes that operations using product labels containing the term “organic” handle an average of 20 labels annually. Based upon AMS NOP's 2015 List of certified organic operations, there are over 13,100 certified organic handlers. For each certified handler, AMS estimates that the average annual burden to develop product labels with organic claims is one hour per product label times 20 product labels per handler. The annual burden will be lower for smaller operations and higher for large operations that produce a significant volume of organic processed product.

    Interested parties. Any interested party may petition the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for the purpose of having a substance evaluated for recommendation to the Secretary for inclusion on or deletion from the National List. Based on the number of petitions received in the past, AMS estimates 25 parties petitioning the NOSB to amend the National List in a given year. The annual burden for each interested party to prepare a complete petition is an average of 30 hours.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.79 hours per response.

    Respondents: Producers, handlers, certifying agents, inspectors and State, Local or Tribal governments and interested parties.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 31,329.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,007,189.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 32.15.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,826,189.

    Comments are invited on: (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 including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06930 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 22, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Federal Collection Methods for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Recipient Claims.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0446.

    Summary of Collection: Section 13(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (The Act) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations at 7 CFR 273.18 require State agencies to refer delinquent debtors for SNAP benefit over-issuance to the U.S. Department of Treasury for collection. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), 31 U.S.C. 3701, et seq., requires these debts to be referred to Treasury for collection when they are 180 days or more delinquent. Through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), 31 CFR part 285, payments such as Federal income tax refunds, Federal salaries and other Federal payments payable to these delinquent debtors will be offset and the amount applied to the delinquent debt.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is used by individuals or households to obtain due process before debts are referred to TOP for offset. State agencies will use the collected information to provide due process to individuals/households; to add and maintain debts in TOP; to request addresses; and to certify to Treasury the accuracy and legality of debts that are submitted to TOP. Without the information, compliance with the DCIA would not be possible and departmental participation in TOP would be jeopardized.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Individual or households.

    Number of Respondents: 523,272.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 47,051.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06924 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 22, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by April 27, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Forest Service

    Title: Health Screening Questionnaire.

    OMB Control Number: 0596-0164.

    Summary of Collection: The Protection Act of 1922 (16 U.S.C. 594) authorizes the Forest Service (FS) to fight fires on National Forest System lands. Title 5 CFR, part 339, authorizes the FS to establish medical qualification standards and require pre-appointment medical examinations, regular recurring periodic examinations after appointment, and whenever there is a direct question about a firefighter's continued ability to meet the medical qualification standards. The information collected pertains to an individual's health status and health history. The collection of this information and use thereof are consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974).

    Need and Use of the Information: Individuals seeking recertification or employment as a new firefighter with the FS or Department of Interior (DOI) must complete the Health Screening Questionnaire (HSQ). FS and DOI will collect information from potential applicants using forms FS-5100-30, Work Capacity Test Informed Consent and FS-5100-31, Health Screening Questionnaire. Applicants will also need to complete the Wildland Firefighter Medical Qualifications Program Medical Exam and a Self-Certification Statement and Blood Pressure Check. Wildland firefighters perform long hours of arduous labor in adverse conditions. The information collected is used to determine whether an individual being considered for a position can carry out those duties in a manner that will not place the candidate or coworkers unduly at risk due to inadequate physical fitness and health. If the information is not collected, the Government's liability risk is high, special needs of an individual may not be known, or the screening of an applicant's physical suitability would be greatly inhibited.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 20,271.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 8,268.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06929 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Forest Resource Coordinating Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Resource Coordinating Committee (Committee) will meet via teleconference. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. II), and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the Act) (Pub. L. 110-246). Committee information can be found at the following Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/frcc/.

    DATES:

    The teleconference will be held on April 20, 2016 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    All meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the Web site listed in the SUMMARY section or contact Andrea Bedell-Loucks at [email protected] for further details.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments placed on the Committee's Web site listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Bedell-Loucks, Designated Federal Officer, Cooperative Forestry staff, 202-205-1190.

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Consulting foresters role in private forest landowner assistance;

    2. Finalize May agenda.

    The teleconference is open to the public. However, the public is strongly encouraged to RSVP prior to the teleconference to ensure all related documents are shared with public meeting participants. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing 10 days before the planned meeting to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Laurie Schoonhoven, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 1123, Washington, DC 20250 or by email to [email protected] A summary of the meeting will be posted on the Web site listed above within 21 days after the meeting.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 16, 2016. James E. Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06858 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service RIN 0596-AD27 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, is developing Agency policy concerning mitigation of adverse impacts. The Agency is hosting a webinar for all interested members of the public to share information concerning its goals and objectives for the mitigation policy, and the anticipated timeline for developing the policy. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

    DATES:

    A webinar will be held for interested members of the general public on Wednesday, April 6, 2016, from 1:00-2:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time/10:00-11:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The webinar will be held via Adobe Connect web conferencing software. To access the presentation, enter the following URL into any Flash-enabled web browser: https://usfs.adobeconnect.com/emc-faca/. Audio-only access is available toll-free by calling (888) 844-9904 and entering the following access code: 4941314.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Carlson, Acting Mitigation Coordinator, Ecosystem Management Coordination (202) 205-1481, [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this RFI is to inform the public about and gather input on the Agency's forthcoming policy on mitigating adverse impacts. The webinar is open to the public. The agenda will include time for participants to ask clarifying questions and provide input in writing during the webinar. Written input following the webinar must be sent to Mitigation Policy Input, USDA Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination, 201 14th Street Mail Stop 1104, Washington, DC 20250-1104; or by email at [email protected]

    The November 3, 2015 Presidential Memorandum: Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment directs the Forest Service “to avoid and then minimize harmful effects to land, water, wildlife, and other ecological resources (natural resources) caused by land- or water-disturbing activities, and to ensure that any remaining harmful effects are effectively addressed, consistent with existing mission and legal authorities.” To that end, the Memorandum instructs the Agency to “adopt a clear and consistent approach for avoidance and minimization of, and compensatory mitigation for, the impacts of their activities and the projects they approve” through directives and a regulation.

    The Memorandum will be implemented by the Forest Service initially through an agency regulation addressing adverse impacts on natural resources through avoiding and minimizing impact, and then compensating for those impacts that do occur to important or sensitive resources. The objective of these efforts is to ensure clarity, improved transparency, and consistency for proposed activities affecting landscapes. Those efforts include improving information sharing and mitigation support tools by working with other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and partners to identify and share information in order to define natural resources baselines and monitor the effectiveness of mitigation actions.

    Dated: March 21, 2016. Brian Ferebee, Associate Deputy Chief of National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06857 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (LTFAC) AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet in Incline Village, Nevada. The Committee is established consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. Additional information concerning the Committee, including meeting summary/minutes, can be found by visiting the Committee's Web site at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/ltbmu/LTFAC. The summary/minutes of the meetings will be posted within 21 days of the meetings.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 14, 2016, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. All meetings are subject to cancellation. For updated status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Donald W. Reynolds Nonprofit Community Center, Meiling Training Room, 948 Incline Way, Incline Village, Nevada. Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses, when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California. Please call ahead at 530-543-2774 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Kuentz, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Forest Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, by phone at 530-543-2774, or by email at [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to provide:

    (1) Current status of the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (2) Review of SNPLMA 2013 Report (3) Review of Environmental Improvement Plan (4) Committee's future implementation strategy discussion (5) Review of 2016 meeting schedule

    The meeting is open to the public. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before the meeting. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by April 7, 2016. Written comments and time requests for oral comments must be sent to Karen Kuentz, Forest Service, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, or by email at [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-543-2693.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: March 18, 2016. Jeff Marsolais, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06902 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) 2014 Panel AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed Survey of Income and Program Participation 2014 Panel, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before May 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Jason Fields, U.S. Census Bureau, ADDP, HQ-7H153, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233-0001 (301-763-2465 or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Census Bureau has completed two of four waves of the Survey of Income and Program Participation 2014 Panel (SIPP), which began in February 2014. Wave 1 of the SIPP 2014 Panel was conducted from February to June of 2014. Wave 2 was conducted from February to June of 2015. Wave 3 is scheduled to be conducted from April to June of 2016. Wave 4 is scheduled to be conducted from February to June of 2017. This notice is for a request to extend the current OMB approval, which expires on December 31, 2016, to December 31, 2019.

    The SIPP is a household-based survey designed as a continuous series of national panels. The SIPP represents a source of information for a wide variety of topics and allows the integration of information for separate topics to form a single, unified database allowing for the examination of the interaction between tax, transfer, and other government and private policies. Government domestic policy formulators depend heavily upon SIPP information concerning the distribution of income received either directly as money or indirectly as in-kind benefits and the effect of tax and transfer programs on that distribution. They also need improved and expanded data on the income and general economic and financial situation of the U.S. population, which the SIPP has provided on a continuing basis since 1983. The SIPP has measured levels of economic well-being and permitted measurement of changes in these levels over time.

    The 2014 SIPP interview includes a portion conducted using an Event History Calendar (EHC) that facilitates the collection of dates of events and spells of coverage. The EHC assists the respondent's ability to recall events accurately over the one year reference period and provides increased data quality and inter-topic consistency for dates reported by respondents. The EHC is intended to help respondents recall information in a more natural “autobiographical” manner by using life events as triggers to recall other economic events. The EHC was previously used in the 2010-2013 SIPP-EHC field tests in addition to 2014 Panel Waves 1 and 2. The 2014 Panel SIPP design does not contain freestanding topical modules; however, a portion of traditional SIPP topical module content is integrated into the 2014 SIPP Panel interview. Examples of this content include questions on medical expenses, child care, retirement and pension plan coverage, marital history, adult and child well-being, and others.

    The 2014 SIPP Panel Wave 1 was a brand new sample with new survey respondents who were not previously interviewed. The 2014 SIPP Panel uses a revised interviewing method structure that follows adults (age 15 years and older) who move from the prior wave household. Consequently, Waves 2, 3, and 4 incorporate dependent data, which is information collected from the prior wave interview brought forward to the current interview.

    The Census Bureau used and plans to continue using Computer Assisted Recorded Interview (CARI) technology for some of the respondents during the 2014 SIPP Panel. CARI is a data collection method that captures audio along with response data during computer-assisted personal and telephone interviews (CAPI & CATI). With the respondent's consent, a portion of each interview is recorded unobtrusively and both the sound file and screen images are returned with the response data to a central location for coding. By reviewing the recorded portions of the interview, quality assurance analysts can evaluate the likelihood that the exchange between the field representative and respondent is authentic and follows critical survey protocol as defined by the sponsor and based on best practices. During the 2014 SIPP Panel we are developing protocols to use the CARI Interactive Data Access System (CARI System), an innovative, integrated, multifaceted monitoring system that features a configurable web-based interface for behavior coding, quality assurance, and coaching. This system assists in coding interviews for measuring question and interviewer performance and the interaction between interviewers and respondents.

    SIPP designed a multi-wave incentive experiment to evaluate the efficacy of incentives as a means of increasing respondent cooperation. In Wave 1, the panel was divided into four groups and each household was randomly assigned to one of the groups. Group 1 was the control group; households in this group were not to be eligible for an incentive in any wave of the 2014 panel. Group 2 was not eligible to receive an incentive in Wave 1, but was eligible for a $40 debit card for Wave 2. This group was used to test retroactively the efficacy of a propensity model. Group 3 was eligible to receive a $20 incentive in Wave 1, but was not eligible to receive a debit card in Wave 2. Group 4 was eligible to receive a $40 incentive in Wave 1. In Wave 2 Group 4 was split in two subgroups: A—did not receive a debit card; and B—was eligible for a $40 debit card. Consequently, in Wave 2 only two groups were eligible to receive debit cards (Group 2 and 4B).

    For Wave 3 in 2016, Group 1 will continue as prior waves (no incentive), Group 4A will continue to receive a $40 debit card, and Group 4B will be determined using an adaptive model with the remaining groups. For those in the modeled groups, roughly 22,500 households, 30% will be eligible for incentives. Selection for the Wave 3 incentive in the modeled groups will be made using a propensity model process. For all waves, we distribute the incentives centrally from our National Processing Center. This centralized distribution eliminates any discretion on the part of the field representatives, ensuring that only eligible households are given (or promised) incentives.

    Approximately 30,500 households are expected to be interviewed for the 2014 SIPP Panel Waves 3 and 4. We estimate that each household contains 2.1 people aged 15 and above, yielding approximately 64,050 person-level interviews per wave in this panel. Interviews take approximately 60 minutes per adult on average, consequently the total annual burden for 2014 SIPP-EHC interviews will be 64,050 hours per year.

    II. Method of Collection

    The 2014 SIPP Panel instrument consists of one interview per person per wave (year) resulting in four total interviews over the life of the panel. Each interview will reference the previous calendar year depending on the wave. The interview is conducted in person with all household members 15 years old or over using regular proxy-respondent rules. In the instances where the residence is not accessible or the respondent makes a request the interview may be conducted by telephone.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0977.

    Form Number(s): SIPP/CAPI Automated Instrument.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 64,050.

    Estimated Time per Response: 60 minutes per person on average.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 64,050.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $35,000,000.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: 13 U.S.C. Section 182.

    Confidentiality: The data collected under this agreement are confidential under 13 U.S.C. Section 9. All access to Title 13 data from this survey is restricted to those holding Census Bureau Special Sworn Status pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 23(c).

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06895 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: National Survey of Children's Health.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s):

    English survey forms include:

    NSCH-S1 (English Screener),

    NSCH-T1 (English Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children),

    NSCH-T2 (English Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children),

    NSCH-T3 (English Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children).

    Spanish survey forms include:

    NSCH-S-S1 (Spanish Screener),

    NSCH-S-T1 (Spanish Topical for 0- to 5-year-old children),

    NSCH-S-T2 (Spanish Topical for 6- to 11-year-old children), and

    NSCH-S-T3 (Spanish Topical for 12- to 17-year-old children).

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 190,406 for the Screener and 76,500 for the Topical.

    Average Hours Per Response: 0.083 for the screener and 0.5 for the topical.

    Burden Hours: 54,117.

    Needs and Uses: The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) enables the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to produce national and state-based estimates on the health and well-being of children, their families, and their communities as well as estimates of the prevalence and impact of children with special health care needs.

    Data will be collected using two modes. The first mode is an Internet survey that contains the screener and topical instruments. The Internet instrument first will take the respondent through the screener questions. If the household screens into the study, the respondent will be taken directly into one of the three age-based topical sets of questions. The second mode that is a mailout/mailback of a self-administered paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI) screener instrument followed by a separate mailout/mailback of a PAPI age-based topical instrument.

    The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) is a large-scale (sample size is 364,153 addresses) national survey. The survey will consist of several experiments: (i) To assess amount of respondent cash incentives ($0, $2, or $5) needed to gain cooperation and participation in the survey, (ii) to test whether an alternative Maternal and Child Health Bureau branding improves response for the NSCH over the Census Bureau's standard branding and (iii) modification to data collection procedures based on the tract level internet response likelihood.

    Affected Public: Parents, researchers, policymakers, and family advocates.

    Frequency: This 2016 collection is the first administration of the new NSCH. There is a possibility that this will become an annual or biennial survey, with a new sample drawn for each administration.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority:

    Census Authority: 13 U.S.C. Section 8(b), HRSA MCHB Authority: 42 U.S.C., Section 701(a)(2).

    Confidentiality: The data collected under this agreement are confidential under 13 U.S.C. Section 9. All access to Title 13 data from this survey is restricted to Census Bureau employees and those holding Census Bureau Special Sworn Status pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 23(c).

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06903 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE537 Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings and hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a meeting of its Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team (Insular fisheries and Pelagic fisheries teams) and the Fishery Data Collection and Research Committee—Technical Committee (FDCRC-TC). The FEP Team will review the revised annual report to serve as the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report for the Western Pacific region, conduct the evaluation of the 2015 catches to the 2015 Annual Catch Limits (ACL) for the coral reef, crustacean, and Territory bottomfish fisheries, and look at options for changing the current risk determination process and specification of optimum yield (OY). The FDCRC-TC will review the status of the data collection improvement efforts in the Western Pacific region and address the data collection gaps identified by the FEP Teams to support the monitoring of the fisheries in the SAFE report.

    DATES:

    The FEP Team meeting will be held between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on April 11-13, 2016. The Insular and Pelagic Teams will have concurrent sessions from 8:30 a.m. on April 11, 2016 to 12 noon on April 12, 2016. A joint FEP Team session will be held from 1 p.m. on April 12, 2016 to 5 p.m. on April 13, 2016. The FDCRC-TC will be held on April 14-15, 2016. For specific times and agendas, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FEP Team and FDCRC-TC meetings will be held at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Dr., Honolulu, HI 96814; phone (808) 956-4262. The Insular Fisheries Team concurrent session will be at the Carnation Room while the Pelagic Fisheries Team concurrent session will be at the Plumeria Room. The Joint FEP Team meeting will be at the Garden Lanai Room. The FDCRC-TC meeting will be at the Ilima Room.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, phone: (808) 522-8220.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public comment periods will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

    Agenda for FEP Team Meeting—Insular Fishery Concurrent Session 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday, April 11, 2016 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of draft agenda, 2015 report & assignment of rapporteurs 3. Report on previous Plan Team recommendations and Council actions 4. 2015 Annual/SAFE Report A. Fishery Performance i. Insular fisheries modules a. American Samoa i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Bottomfish fishery iii. Crustacean fishery iv. Precious coral fishery b. Guam i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Bottomfish fishery iii. Crustacean fishery iv. Precious coral fishery c. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Bottomfish fishery iii. Crustacean fishery iv. Precious coral fishery d. Hawaii i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Bottomfish fishery iii. Crustacean fishery iv. Precious coral fishery e. Pacific Island Remote Island Areas (PRIA) i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Bottomfish fishery iii. Crustacean fishery iv. Precious coral fishery ii. Discussions iii. Public Comment B. Ecosystem Considerations i. Protected species section ii. Climate, ecosystems and biological section a. Environmental & climate variables b. Coral reef ecosystem variables c. Life history and length-derived variables iii. Habitat section iv. Human dimension section v. Marine Planning section vi. Discussions vii. Public Comment C. Administrative Reports i. Number of federal permits ii. Regulatory actions in 2015 iii. Discussions iv. Public Comment Agenda for FEP Team Meeting—Pelagic/International Fishery Concurrent Session 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday, April 11, 2016 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of draft agenda, 2015 report & assignment of rapporteurs 3. Report on previous Plan Team recommendations and Council actions 4. 2015 Annual/SAFE Report A. Ecosystem Considerations i. Climate change variables ii. Habitat conditions iii. Human dimensions iv. Protected species B. Fishery Performance i. CNMI ii. American Samoa iii. Guam iv. Hawaii v. International vi. Recreational C. Discussion D. 2015 annual report region-wide recommendations E. Public Comment Agenda for FEP Team Meeting—Insular Fishery Concurrent Session (continued) 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m., Tuesday, April 12, 2016 D. Facilitated discussion on dealing with data gaps and variable definitions i. Fishery modules ii. Ecosystem modules E. Workshop discussion on data integration (Chapter 3) F. Summary of annual report module action items G. Discussions H. Public Comment Agenda for FEP Team Meeting—Pelagic/International Fishery Concurrent Session 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m., Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5. Continued discussion on Monday agenda items (if needed) 6. Other Pelagic FEP issues A. Amendments B. Other regulatory issues 7. Western Central Pacific Fishery Commission 12 Outcomes 8. Protected Species A. Seabirds B. Turtles 9. Discussion on CPUE variability with regards to the implementation of turtle mitigation measures in the AS longline fishery 10. Discussion 10. Public Comment Agenda for the Joint Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team Meeting 1 p.m.-5 p.m., Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of the draft Joint meeting agenda, 2015 report, and assignment of rapporteurs 3. Plan Team 101 and Regional Operating Agreement (ROA) 4. Status of Fishery Ecosystem Plan revision 5. Monitoring and updating priorities A. Council's 5-year research priorities—work item (process of monitoring the status of the research priorities) B. Cooperative Research priorities i. Regional Implementation Framework ii. Revision of priorities to streamline with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement C. Pacific Island Fisheries Research Program D. Discussions E. Public Comment 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2016 6. Action agenda items A. Evaluating 2015 catches to its respective 2015 ACLs i. Coral reef fisheries ii. Crustacean fisheries iii. Territory bottomfish fisheries B. ACL specification process amendment i. Method of risk determination ii. ACL as OY C. Ecosystem component designation criteria: changing Management Unit Species designation D. Discussions E. Public Comment 7. Workshop discussion on ecosystem and fishery data integration A. Data availability B. Initial data integration discussion C. Developing integration workplan D. Discussions E. Public Comment 8. General Discussions 9. Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team Recommendations 10. Other Business Agenda for FDCRC-TC Meeting 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Thursday, April 14, 2016 1. Welcome and introductions 2. Approval of draft agenda, 2015 report & assignment of rapporteurs 3. Report on previous FDCRC-TC recommendations and Council actions 4. Status of the data collection improvement efforts

    A. American Samoa

    B. Guam C. CNMI D. Hawaii E. Marine Recreational Information Program and Territory Science Initiative Projects F. Western Pacific Fishery Information Network Database Transition and Online Interface G. Discussions H. Public Comment 5. 2015 Annual/SAFE Report Recommendations A. Overall Annual/SAFE Report Framework i. Linkages with the on-the-ground data collection ii. Timelines for data submission for Annual/SAFE Report B. Discussion on Addressing Recommendations from the Fishery section i. Insular fisheries modules a. American Samoa b. Guam c. CNMI d. Hawaii ii. Ecosystem Considerations a. Climate, ecosystems and biological section b. Human dimension section C. Discussions D. Public Comment 6. Strategic Plan Monitoring A. 2009 Data Workshop Recommendations and Status B. Status of tasks for the FDCRC Strategic Plan C. Grants and Funding Opportunity Matrix D. Group discussion on status monitoring procedure E. Discussions F. Public Comment 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m., Friday, April 15, 2016 7. Improving the on-the-ground data collection A. How much more do we need to collect: SHINY Database Analytics B. BioSampling Program Review C. Establishing Import-Export Database System D. Discussions E. Public Comment 8. General Discussions 9. FDCRC-TC Recommendations 10. Other Business

    Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 163rd meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06897 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting via webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a Post Council Meeting Briefing for the public via webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting will convene on Monday, April 18, 2016; starting at 6 p.m. EDT and ending no later than 9 p.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place via webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3457390497527000068.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Charlene Ponce, Public Information Officer, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Click the link below to register for the webinar: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3457390497527000068. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

    Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Review of Council actions taken during the April, 2016 Council Meeting 3. Questions and Answers 4. Adjourn Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06921 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE461 Marine Mammals; Pinniped Removal Authority AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 15, 2012, NMFS issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) under section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (States) for the intentional take, by lethal methods, of individually identifiable California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) in the vicinity of Bonneville Dam, on the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, that are having a significant negative impact on Pacific salmon and steelhead (Onchorhynchus spp.) listed as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 2012 LOA expires on June 30, 2016. On January 27, 2016, NMFS received an application from the same States to extend the 2012 LOA through June 30, 2021. The States are not requesting any changes or modifications to the terms and conditions of the 2012 LOA.

    The States' application contains a summary of the status and management of California sea lions and salmonid populations as they relate to the problem interaction at Bonneville Dam. Pursuant to the MMPA, NMFS has determined that the application contains sufficient information to warrant convening a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force), which will deliberate after the closing of a public comment period. NMFS is soliciting comments on the States' application and other relevant information related to pinniped predation on salmonids at Bonneville Dam.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0034, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0034

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Comments on the application should be addressed to: National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232; ATTN: Robert Anderson, Protected Resource Division.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert Anderson, (503) 231-2226.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The States' application and further information is available on the NMFS West Coast Region Web site, including but not limited to: the States' application; background information on pinniped predation on listed salmonids; NMFS' past and current authorizations of lethal removal at Bonneville Dam; descriptions of nonlethal efforts to address the predation; Bonneville Dam field reports; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife field reports; NMFS' 2008 Final Environmental Assessment; NMFS' 2011 Supplemental Information Report to the Final Environmental Assessment; and NMFS' 2012 Report on Consideration of Statutory Factors under section 120 of the MMPA. The information can be accessed at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/authorized_states.html.

    Statutory Authority

    Section 120 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.) allows the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, and the West Coast Regional Administrator of NMFS, to authorize the intentional lethal taking of individually identifiable pinnipeds that are having a significant negative impact on the decline or recovery of salmonid fishery stocks which have been listed as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (19 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The authorization applies only to pinnipeds that are not listed under the ESA, or designated as a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA. California sea lions are neither listed under the ESA nor designated as a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA. Pursuant to section 120(b) and (c), a State may request authorization to lethally remove pinnipeds, and the Regional Administrator is required to: (1) Review the application to determine whether the applicant has produced sufficient evidence to warrant establishing a Pinniped-Fishery Interaction Task Force (Task Force) to address the situation described in the application; (2) establish the Task Force and publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment on the application if sufficient evidence has been produced; (3) consider any recommendations made by the Task Force in making a determination whether to approve or deny the application; and (4) if approved, immediately take steps to implement the intentional lethal taking, which shall be performed by Federal or State agencies, or qualified individuals under contract to such agencies.

    The MMPA requires the Task Force be composed of the following: (1) NMFS/NOAA staff, (2) scientists who are knowledgeable about the pinniped interaction, (3) representatives of affected conservation and fishing community organizations, (4) treaty Indian tribes, (5) the States, and (6) such other organizations as NMFS deems appropriate. The Task Force reviews the application, other background information, the factors contained in MMPA section 120(d), and public comments and, as required by section 120, recommends to NMFS whether to approve or deny the application. The Task Force is also required to submit with its recommendation a description of the specific pinniped individual or individuals; the proposed location, time, and method of such taking; criteria for evaluating the success of the action; the duration of the intentional lethal taking authority; and a suggestion for non-lethal alternatives, if available and practicable, including a recommended course of action.

    Background

    In December 2006, NMFS received an application co-signed by the directors of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, on the States' behalf, requesting authorization under section 120 of the MMPA to intentionally take, by lethal methods, individually identifiable predatory California sea lions in the Columbia River, which were then having a significant negative impact on the recovery of threatened and endangered Pacific salmon and steelhead. After deeming the States' application complete, NMFS published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the application and also requested names of potential members of the Task Force (72 FR 4239, January 30, 2007). After the close of the public comment period, NMFS established the Bonneville Task Force under MMPA section 120(d) in August 2007, which consisted of 18 members (72 FR 44833, August 9, 2007). The Bonneville Task Force completed and submitted its report to NMFS on November 5, 2007. Seventeen of the eighteen members supported lethal removal of California sea lions while one member from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) opposed the States' application and any lethal removal. NMFS partially approved the State's 2006 request in 2008, issuing its LOA on March 18, 2008.

    Shortly after NMFS issued the LOA, HSUS filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Oregon, alleging that NMFS' LOA violated section 120 of the MMPA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In November 2008, the district court issued an order upholding NMFS' approval of the lethal removal program and its evaluation of impacts under NEPA. Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to halt the removal program while the appeal was pending. On the merits the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the LOA in November 2010. Humane Society of the United States, et al. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). In response to the court's 2010 decision, the States submitted a new request for lethal removal authorization on December 7, 2010. NMFS considered the request and new information available since its prior authorization, including the Bonneville Task Force's recommendations. NMFS again authorized lethal take, under similar conditions to the 2008 authorization (albeit with modifications), issuing a new LOA on May 13, 2011. HSUS again filed suit this time in federal court for the District of Columbia, alleging, among other things, that NMFS had not followed procedural requirements under MMPA section 120 prior to issuing the new authorization (including public notice and comment on the States' application). In coordination with the States, NMFS revoked the May 13 authorization on July 22, 2011, and HSUS voluntarily withdrew their lawsuit.

    On August 18, 2011, the States submitted a new request for lethal removal of California sea lions at Bonneville Dam under essentially the same conditions as the prior authorizations. NMFS published notice of the States' application in the Federal Register on September 12, 2011, and requested comment on the application and other relevant information concerning the pinniped-salmonid conflict at Bonneville Dam (76 FR 56167; September 12, 2011). NMFS reconvened the Bonneville Task Force in October 2011 to evaluate the States' application and public comments and to recommend whether NMFS should approve or deny the proposed intentional lethal taking program. The Bonneville Task Force's final report and recommendation was provided to NMFS on November 14, 2011. On March 15, 2012, NMFS issued the current LOA to the States. In renewed litigation by HSUS, this LOA was upheld in district court on February 15, 2013, and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Humane Society of the US v. Bryson, 924 F.Supp.2d 1228 (D. Or., 2013); HSUS v. Pritzker, No. 13-35195 (9th Cir., 9/27/13).

    The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator has considered the States' application and determined that it provides sufficient evidence to warrant reconvening the Bonneville Task Force. The application, based on NMFS' 2012 LOA and its implementation, describes the continuing problem of interactions between pinnipeds and listed salmonids at and below Bonneville Dam, and describes the expected benefits from the removal of pinnipeds. The application also documents past nonlethal efforts to prevent problem pinniped-salmonid interactions.

    The MMPA requires NMFS to consider the recommendations of the Task Force when determining whether to issue a section 120 LOA. In order to obtain the Bonneville Task Force's views regarding this extension of the existing LOA, NMFS will consult with Bonneville Task Force members after the 30-day public comment period closes.

    Request for Comments and Other Information

    NMFS solicits public comments on the States' application and any additional information that should be considered by the Bonneville Task Force in making its recommendation, or by NMFS in making its determination whether to approve or deny the application.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Nicole R. LeBoeuf, Chief, Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06928 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM) Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hotel 1620, 180 Water Street, Plymouth, MA 02360; telephone: (508) 747-4900; fax: (508) 747-8937.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The committee will receive and discuss a progress report from the Plan Development Team on a prototype or example Fishery Ecosystem Plan (eFEP). A final report is scheduled to be presented at the June 2016 Council meeting. They will also discuss establishing an EBFM Advisory Panel and developing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan scoping process. Other business will be discussed if time permits.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06894 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE525 Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; availability of hatchery plan and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has submitted a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The HGMP specifies the operation of a hatchery program rearing steelhead in the Mad River subbasin within the State of California. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of the HGMP and associated draft environmental assessment (EA) for comment prior to a decision by NMFS whether to approve the proposed hatchery program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. Pacific time on April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the application should be addressed to the NMFS NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Coastal Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California 95521, or faxed to 707-825-4840. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following identifier: Comments on the Mad River hatchery plan.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Free, at phone number: (707) 825-5126, or via email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Species Covered in This Notice

    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated California Coastal.

    Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Southern Oregon/Northern California (SONCC).

    Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened, naturally produced and artificially propagated Northern California.

    Background

    CDFW has submitted to NMFS an HGMP describing a hatchery program that releases steelhead into the Mad River, in northern California, for consideration pursuant to limit 5 of the ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead.

    The hatchery program that is the subject of the NMFS evaluation would operate to provide steelhead for harvest in freshwater recreational fisheries in the Mad River. The program would propagate steelhead that are derived from the local steelhead population in the Mad River, ensuring that at least half of the MRH winter-run steelhead spawning pairs are hatchery spawned natural-origin and to match natural-origin steelhead with their natural counterparts whenever possible. Measures would be applied in the hatchery program to reduce the risk of incidental adverse genetic, ecological, and demographic effects on natural-origin steelhead and salmon populations.

    As specified in the July 10, 2000, ESA 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422) and updated June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160), NMFS may approve an HGMP if it meets criteria set forth in 50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)(i)(A) through (K). Prior to final approval of an HGMP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment.

    Authority

    Under section 4 of the ESA, the Secretary of Commerce is required to adopt such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable for the conservation of species listed as threatened. The ESA salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) specifies categories of activities that contribute to the conservation of listed salmonids and sets out the criteria for such activities. Limit 5 of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(b)(5)) further provides that the prohibitions of paragraph (a) of the updated 4(d) rule (50 CFR 223.203(a)) do not apply to activities associated with artificial propagation programs provided that an HGMP has been approved by NMFS to be in accordance with the salmon and steelhead 4(d) rule (65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000, as updated in 70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005).

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06943 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE538 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Monday, April 11, 2016 through Thursday, April 14, 2016. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: Montauk Yacht Club, 32 Star Island Road, Montauk, NY, telephone: (631) 668-3100.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible).

    Monday, April 11, 2016 Tilefish Committee

    Review blueline tilefish alternatives, Advisory Panel recommendation and public comments, consider Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations, and develop recommendations to the Council for final action on amendment.

    Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee and River Herring and Shad Committee

    Review Industry-Funded Monitoring (IFM) mackerel coverage alternatives and Advisory Panel comments and make recommendations to the Council for preferred IFM alternatives for public hearings.

    Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish Committee and River Herring and Shad Committee Joint With River Herring and Shad Advisory Panel

    Review 2013 Stocks in the Fishery (River Herring and Shad) White Paper and develop recommendations to the Council regarding terms of reference for reconsideration of River Herring and Shad as stocks in the fishery.

    Executive Committee

    Review MAFMC and other Council ABC Control Rules and Risk Policies and discuss framework to modify existing MAFMC Risk Policy.

    Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)

    Review and discuss draft EAFM Guidance Document.

    Unmanaged Forage Fish Amendment

    Review the Fishery Management Action Team and Ecosystems and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel, Committee comments, and review and approve public hearing document.

    European Union Pelagic Advisory Council and EAFM

    Dr. Verena Ohms, Director Pelagic Advisory Council, will provide a presentation to the Council.

    November 2016 Discard Methods Workshop

    Michael Lanning, of the NMFS, will provide a presentation to the Council.

    Wednesday, April 13, 2016 Golden Tilefish—2017 Specifications

    Review SSC, Advisory Panel, Monitoring Committee, and staff recommendations for 2017 specifications.

    Golden Tilefish Framework 2—Meeting 2

    Review and adopt Framework.

    Blueline Tilefish Amendment

    Review Tilefish Committee recommendations and approve Blueline Tilefish Amendment.

    Law Enforcement Report

    Reports will be received from NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Scup Gear Restricted Areas Framework

    Review alternatives and adopt Framework.

    Omnibus Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment

    Review Committee recommendations and select preferred alternatives for public hearings.

    Thursday, April 14, 2016 Spiny Dogfish Trip Limits

    Review ASMFC Spiny Dogfish Trip Limit modification request and consider changes to the trip limit.

    National Bycatch Reduction Strategy

    A presentation will be given by a NMFS Representative.

    Business Session

    Organization Reports; Liaison Reports; Executive Director's Report; Science Report; and Committee Reports.

    • Continuing and New Business

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06898 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE512 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 49 data webinar for Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 49 assessment process of Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species will consist of a data workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a review workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 49 Data webinar will be held April 12, 2015, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) a series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion during the data webinar are as follows:

    Panelists will present summary data, and discuss data needs and treatments.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06893 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Multistakeholder Process To Promote Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will convene a meeting of a multistakeholder process concerning the collaboration between security researchers and software and system developers and owners to address security vulnerability disclosure on April 8, 2016.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 8, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Central Time. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Westin Chicago River North, 320 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60654.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allan Friedman, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4281; email; [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: On March 19, 2015, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, working with the Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF), issued a Request for Comment to “identify substantive cybersecurity issues that affect the digital ecosystem and digital economic growth where broad consensus, coordinated action, and the development of best practices could substantially improve security for organizations and consumers.” 1 This Request built on earlier work from the Department, including the 2011 Green Paper Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy, 2 as well as comments the Department had received on related issues.3 On July 9, 2015, after reviewing the comments, NTIA announced that the first issue to be addressed would be “collaboration on vulnerability research disclosure,” 4 and subsequently announced that the first meeting of a multistakeholder process on this topic would be held on September 29, 2015. A second meeting was convened on December 2, 2015.5

    1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Request for Public Comment, Stakeholder Engagement on Cybersecurity in the Digital Ecosystem, 80 FR 14360, Docket No. 150312253-5253-01 (Mar. 19, 2015), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/cybersecurity_rfc_03192015.pdf.

    2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Internet Policy Task Force, Cybersecurity, Innovation, and the Internet Economy (June 2011) (Green Paper), available at: http://www.nist.gov/itl/upload/Cybersecurity_Green-Paper_FinalVersion.pdf.

    3See Comments Received in Response to Federal Register Notice Developing a Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Docket No. 140721609-4609-01, available at: http://csrc.nist.gov/cyberframework/rfi_comments_10_2014.html.

    4 NTIA, Enhancing the Digital Economy Through Collaboration on Vulnerability Research Disclosure (July 9, 2015), available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/enhancing-digital-economy-through-collaboration-vulnerability-research-disclosure.

    5 NTIA, Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities.

    Matters to Be Considered: The April 8, 2016 meeting is a continuation of a series of NTIA-convened multistakeholder discussions concerning collaboration on vulnerability disclosure. Stakeholders will engage in an open, transparent, consensus-driven process to develop voluntary principles guiding the collaboration between vendors and researchers about vulnerability information. The April 8, 2016 meeting will build on stakeholders' previous work. More information about stakeholders' work is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities.

    Time and Date: NTIA will convene a meeting of the multistakeholder process to promote collaboration on vulnerability research disclosure on April 8, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Central Time. The meeting date and time are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Place: The meeting will be held at the Westin Chicago River North, 320 North Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60654. The location of the meeting is subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Other Information: The meeting is open to the public and the press. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. The meeting will also be webcast. Requests for real-time captioning of the webcast or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Allan Friedman at (202) 482-4281 or [email protected] at least seven (7) business days prior to the meeting. There will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meeting through a moderated conference bridge, including polling functionality. Access details for the meeting are subject to change. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2015/multistakeholder-process-cybersecurity-vulnerabilities, for the most current information.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06966 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No: CFPB-2016-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities: 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 requesting to renew the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Generic Information Collection Plan for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Outreach Activities.”

    DATES:

    Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before May 27, 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.

    • Mail: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    • Hand Delivery/Courier: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Attention: PRA Office), 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    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.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 mailbox.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Generic Information Collection Plan for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Outreach Activities.

    OMB Control Number: 3170-0041.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approve collection.

    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal governments.

    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 400.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,200.

    Abstract: The Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (IGA) at the Bureau requests OMB's approval for an extension without change this generic information collection plan (GICP) in order to collect information from state, local, and tribal governments. These governments interact closely with consumers and are critical partners in promoting transparency and competition in the consumer financial products marketplace, eliminating unfair and unlawfully discriminatory practices, and enforcing consumer financial laws. The outreach activities performed by IGA will collect low-burden, non-generalizable information through this GICP on trends in consumer financial markets, enforcement actions, regulatory and supervisory issues, and consumer needs at the state, local, and tribal levels. Most of this information will be in the form of government representatives providing impressions and overviews of their activities. Information will be collected on an occasional and voluntary basis from state, local, and tribal governments and from their respective trade associations.

    Request For Comments: Comments are 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 22, 2016. Darrin A. King, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06959 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates AGENCY:

    Defense Travel Management Office, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Travel Management Office is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 302. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States when applicable. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 302 is being published in the Federal Register to assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sonia Malik, 571-372-1276.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Defense Travel Management Office for non-foreign areas outside the contiguous United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 301. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. Civilian Bulletin 302 includes updated rates for Hawaii and the Midway Islands.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN28MR16.030 EN28MR16.031 EN28MR16.032 EN28MR16.033 EN28MR16.034 EN28MR16.035 EN28MR16.036 EN28MR16.037 EN28MR16.038 EN28MR16.039 EN28MR16.040
    [FR Doc. 2016-06937 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary TRICARE Bundled Payment for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement or Reattachment (LEJR) Surgeries Based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of demonstration.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is to advise interested parties of a Military Health System (MHS) demonstration project under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1092, entitled TRICARE Bundled Payment for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement or Reattachment (LEJR) Surgeries that will test bundled payment and quality measurement on an “episode of care” basis to encourage hospitals, physicians, and post-acute care providers to work together to improve the quality and coordination of care from the initial hospitalization through recovery. This demonstration is being conducted in compliance with Section 726 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2016. This particular TRICARE demonstration will be based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model, which will be implemented in 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) beginning April 1, 2016. CMS's CJR Model is designed to promote better and more efficient care for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR surgery (DRG 469 (major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity with major complications or comorbidities) or 470 (major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity without major complications or comorbidities)). Participant hospitals in the CMS model will be held financially accountable for the quality and cost of the entire episode of care, which begins with hospital admission of a beneficiary and ends 90 days post-discharge in order to cover all related costs for the complete recovery period. This “bundled” episode includes all related items and services paid under Medicare Part A and Part B for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The TRICARE demonstration project will test this value-based payment model in the Tampa-St. Petersburg MSA for DRG 470 only (including 90 days of related post-operative care) to assess whether value-driven bundled payment incentives will result in a reduction in the rate of increase in health care spending and improvements in health care quality, patient experience of care, and overall health of TRICARE beneficiaries. All network and non-network hospitals with at least 20 TRICARE admissions for DRG 470 over the three years of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, 2014, and 2015 shall be required to participate in the demonstration project (excluding admissions for beneficiaries with primary Other Health Insurance (OHI), Active Duty Service Members (ADSMs), and Medicare-TRICARE dual eligible beneficiaries). Once selected for participation, hospitals will remain in the project throughout the duration of this demonstration (regardless of actual TRICARE utilization) unless the Government directs otherwise.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This demonstration is mandated by Section 726 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, with an implementation deadline of May 23, 2016. This demonstration authority will remain in effect until December 31, 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Health Agency, Health Plan Execution and Operations, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions pertaining to this demonstration, please contact Ms. Debra Hatzel at (303) 676-3572.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    Section 726 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 directed the Department of Defense to conduct a demonstration project on incentives to improve health care provided under the TRICARE program, also known as paying for value rather than for volume or value-based reimbursement. Innovative health care payment models are being tested and implemented by the CMS and a variety of commercial health care programs and insurers. This demonstration will assess whether value-driven incentives will result in a reduction in the rate of increase in health care spending and improvements in health care quality, patient experience of care, and overall health of TRICARE beneficiaries.

    This demonstration program is based on the Medicare Program for Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Payment Model for Acute Care Hospitals Furnishing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Services, under the authority of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) pursuant to section 1115A of the Social Security Act, and as implemented by CMS. A copy of the Final Rule published by CMS on November 24, 2015, may be found at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/11/24/2015-29438/medicare-program-comprehensive-care-for-joint-replacement-payment-model-for-acute-care-hospitals. In general, CMS sought to target high expenditure, high utilization procedures for which there were significant regional variation in spending. Acute care hospitals, as the site of surgery, will be held accountable for spending during the entire episode of care. This model seeks to promote the alignment of financial and other incentives for all health care providers and suppliers caring for a beneficiary during an LEJR episode, thereby improving quality and increasing efficiency in the provision of care. It is also anticipated the CJR model will benefit Medicare beneficiaries by improving coordination and transition of care by incentivizing more efficient service delivery and higher value care across the inpatient and post-acute care spectrum spanning the episode of care. The CMS CJR model will be implemented in 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) beginning April 1, 2016. Under Medicare, this episode-based payment model is mandatory for all hospitals in the designated MSAs.

    The Department of Defense elected to conduct a demonstration project to adapt, in general, and test this value-based incentive program to assess whether a reduction in the rate of increase in health care spending can be achieved while simultaneously improving the experience and quality of health care provided to our beneficiaries by providing financial incentives for high-quality, efficient care. Consistent with the CJR model, TRICARE demonstration hospitals will be held accountable for the costs and quality of the entire episode of care and will be afforded the opportunity to earn performance-based payments by appropriately reducing expenditures and meeting certain quality metrics.

    An analysis of LEJR surgeries in the TRICARE beneficiary population was conducted. This analysis revealed some of the Metropolitan Service Areas (MSAs) participating in the CMS Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model have a substantial number of TRICARE-eligible beneficiaries. These locations include the Killeen-Temple TX MSA, the Seattle-Tacoma WA MSA, and the Tampa-St. Petersburg FL MSA. Both the Killeen-Temple MSA and the Seattle-Tacoma MSA are associated with large inpatient military treatment facilities (MTFs); however, there are not any inpatient MTFs associated with the Tampa-St. Petersburg MSA. Based on FY 2015 data, there are 74,133 TRICARE eligibles residing in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area, and 128 joint replacement or reattachment surgeries for TRICARE beneficiaries were performed in FY 2015. Due to co-location with CMS's MSA (which makes hospital participation mandatory), the significant number of TRICARE eligible beneficiaries receiving joint replacement or reattachment surgeries, and the lack of MTF inpatient resources, Tampa-St. Petersburg was selected for this demonstration project. Additionally, it was determined only one to two percent of all TRICARE LEJR patients are in DRG 469 (major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity with major complications or comorbidities). As a result, the TRICARE demonstration project will exclude DRG 469 admissions since there are insufficient volumes for setting target episode prices for these procedures.

    B. Description of the Demonstration Project

    All network and non-network hospitals in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area will be required to participate in the demonstration if they had at least 20 TRICARE admissions for DRG 470 over the three years of FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015 (excluding admissions for beneficiaries with Other Health Insurance (OHI), Active Duty Service Members (ADSMs), and Medicare-TRICARE dual eligible beneficiaries). Once selected for participation, demonstration hospitals will remain in the program throughout the duration of this NDAA demonstration (regardless of actual TRICARE utilization) unless the Government directs otherwise. Demonstration hospitals will be accountable for quality and cost of care for an inpatient stay that results in DRG 470, along with all related care provided during the 90-day period following discharge.

    The Defense Health Agency (DHA) will prospectively establish target episode prices for each demonstration hospital at least 30 days prior to the start of each demonstration year. This target episode price shall be based on TRICARE claims for DRG 470 admissions and associated post-operative care for FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015, and shall be a blend of hospital-specific and market-wide historical episode costs. This historical data period shall be used for the duration of the demonstration, with annual adjustments for inflation. In Demonstration Years one and two, the blended rate for the target episode price shall be developed with two-thirds hospital-specific data and one-third market-wide data; in Demonstration Year three, the target episode price shall be developed with one-third hospital-specific data and two-thirds market-wide data.

    Although the CMS CJR Model incorporates an automatic cost savings of 3percent into their target episode prices, DHA will not deduct an automatic cost savings amount when developing TRICARE target episode prices. Instead, target episode pricing will take historical network discounts, DRG and CPT pricing adjustments, and annual inflation factors into consideration. Additionally, the value of any care provided in the direct care system will not be considered in developing target prices. This will permit local military treatment facilities to recapture, where appropriate, post-surgery outpatient care under existing TRICARE procedures based on the MTF's capability and capacity without affecting incentive calculations. The target episode price will clearly indicate the cost build-up calculations for each component of care within the episode. These target episode prices will become the basis for calculating any incentive payments or penalties.

    For purposes of this demonstration, Demonstration Year one will commence for admissions on May 23, 2016, and will include all completed episodes with an end date continuing through September 30, 2017 (including the full 90 days post-discharge period). Subsequent demonstration years will be conducted on a fiscal year basis (i.e., for episodes ending October 1st through September 30th). The target episode price in effect on the date of hospital admission shall be used for incentive calculation purposes, even if a portion of post-discharge care is delivered in the subsequent demonstration year.

    During each demonstration year, all hospital, physician, and post-acute care claims will be paid under the normal TRICARE reimbursement methodologies. At the end of each demonstration year, the total costs of all completed episodes for the year will be compared to the aggregate target episode price for each demonstration hospital to determine whether actual costs were less than, equal to, or greater than the target episode price. In order to ensure all costs are properly attributed to each demonstration hospital, actual cost calculations shall occur no sooner than 90 calendar days following the end of the demonstration year to allow adequate time for claims processing. In order to encourage use of the direct care system and because the managed care support contractor processing the episode calculations will not have access to direct care cost data, costs for direct care shall be excluded (consistent with the target cost development).

    In addition to performing these cost calculations, DHA will utilize the composite quality score (as determined by CMS) for each demonstration hospital as the basis for determining eligibility for gain-sharing. This composite quality score is a hospital-level summary quality score reflecting performance and improvement on the quality measures adopted for the Medicare CJR model (Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA)/Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)) complications measure and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient experience survey measure. TRICARE will use Hospital Compare as the source for these data. Hospitals that do not achieve and maintain a favorable CJR composite quality score for the full demonstration year are not eligible for incentive payments, regardless of whether cost savings are achieved. TRICARE is following the same approach as Medicare in order to ensure hospitals are not reducing the quality of care offered to beneficiaries or reducing patients' overall perception of their hospital experience.

    Incentive payments will be calculated using the CMS gain/loss sharing model; beginning in Demonstration Year one, positive incentive payments will be made to hospitals who achieve and maintain a favorable CJR composite quality score for the full demonstration year and who demonstrate cost savings as compared to the target episode price. “Downside” risk (negative financial incentives) will not be phased into the payment model until the second demonstration year. Gain/Loss sharing will increase over time, from no loss sharing in Demonstration Year one (only gain sharing), to higher levels in later years (gain sharing of 5 percent in Demonstration Years one and two, and 10 percent in Demonstration Year three). Loss sharing is 0 in Demonstration Year one, 5 percent in Demonstration Year two, and 10 percent in Demonstration Year three.

    On a quarterly basis, demonstration hospitals will receive feedback from the MCSCs on their current quality performance (as identified in Hospital Compare), episode of care costs to date, and projected eligibility for incentives (based on TRICARE claims and Medicare's composite quality scores for each hospital). To facilitate effective communication with demonstration hospitals, these quarterly reports shall mirror the format and detail of CMS's feedback reports to the extent feasible. Active Duty Service Members (ADSMs), Medicare-TRICARE Dual Eligible (TDEFIC) beneficiaries, and beneficiaries with Other Health Insurance (OHI) are excluded from this demonstration.

    C. Communications

    The DHA will proactively educate beneficiaries, providers, and other stakeholders about this change.

    D. Evaluation

    This demonstration project will assist the Department in evaluating whether value-driven incentives will result in a reduction in the rate of increase in health care spending and improvements in health care quality, patient experience of care, and overall health of TRICARE beneficiaries. Regular status reports and a full analysis of demonstration outcomes will be conducted consistent with the requirements in Section 726 of the 2016 NDAA. Future expansions of the demonstration project to additional locations may be considered based on DHA data analysis for the Tampa-St. Petersburg market. Details of any future expansions will be announced via Federal Register notice prior to implementation.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06859 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0009] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Campus Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Survey AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 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 an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 27, 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-2016-ICCD-0009. 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-103, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ashley Higgins, 202-219-7061.

    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: Campus Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0827.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 2,072.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 11,397.

    Abstract: The collection of information is necessary under section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, with the goal of increasing transparency surrounding college athletics for student, prospective students, parents, employees and the general public. The survey is a collection tool to compile the annual data on college athletics. The data collected from the individual institutions by ED and is made available to the public through the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool as well as the College Navigator.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06890 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 16-29-LNG] Cheniere Marketing, LLC; Application for Blanket Authorization To Export Previously Imported Liquefied Natural Gas on a Short-Term Basis AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on March 7, 2016, by Cheniere Marketing, LLC (CMI), requesting blanket authorization to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) previously imported into the United States from foreign sources in an amount up to the equivalent of 500 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas on a short-term or spot market basis for a two-year period commencing on June 7, 2016.1 CMI seeks authorization to export the LNG from the Sabine Pass LNG terminal owned by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, to any country with the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. CMI states that it does not seek authorization to export any domestically produced natural gas or LNG. DOE/FE notes that CMI currently holds a blanket authorization to import and export natural gas from and to Canada and Mexico, to import LNG from various international sources by vessel, and to export LNG to Canada and Mexico by vessel and truck, up to a combined total volume equivalent to 1,600 Bcf of natural gas.2 CMI is requesting this authorization both on its own behalf and as agent for other parties who will hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in CMI's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://energy.gov/fe/cheniere-marketing-llc-fe-dkt-no-16-29-lng-export-previously-imported-fta. Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    1 CMI's current blanket authorization to export previously imported LNG, granted in DOE/FE Order No. 3442 on June 6, 2014, extends through June 6, 2016.

    2Cheniere Marketing, LLC, DOE/FE Order No. 3578, FE Docket No. 14-186-NG, Order Granting Blanket Authorization to Import and Export Natural Gas from and to Canada and Mexico, to Import Liquefied Natural Gas from Various International Sources by Vessel, and to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Canada and Mexico by Vessel and Truck (Jan. 8, 2015).

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing by email: [email protected] Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375 Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Howard or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9387; (202) 586-9578 Cassandra Bernstein, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9793 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3 of the NGA, as amended, and the authority contained in DOE Delegation Order No. 00-002.00N (July 11, 2013) and DOE Redelegation Order No. 00-006.02 (Nov. 17, 2014). In reviewing this LNG export application, DOE will consider domestic need for the natural gas, as well as any other issues determined to be appropriate, including whether the arrangement is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. Parties that may oppose this application should comment in their responses on these issues.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its NEPA responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

    Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 16-29-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 16-29-LNG. PLEASE NOTE: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. [FR Doc. 2016-06913 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Extension AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Contractor Legal Management Requirements, OMB Control Number 1910-5115. The proposed collection will require covered DOE contractors and subcontractors to submit to DOE counsel a legal management plan within 60 days following execution of a contract or request of the contracting officer. Covered contractors must also submit an annual legal budget that includes cost projections for matters defined as significant matters. The budget detail will depend on the nature of the activities and complexity of the matters included in the budget. The regulation further requires covered contractors to submit staffing and resource plans addressing matters defined as significant matters in litigation. The regulation requires covered contractors to submit certain information related to litigation initiated against the contractor before initiating defensive litigation, offensive litigation, or entering into a settlement agreement.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this collection must be received on or April 27, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to Eric Mulch, [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric Mulch, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-5115; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Contractor Legal Management Requirements; (3) Type of Review: extension; (4) Purpose: the information collection to be extended has been and will be used to form the basis for DOE actions on requests from the contractors for reimbursement of litigation and other legal expenses. The information collected related to annual legal budget, staffing and resource plans, and initiation or settlement of defensive or offensive litigation is and will be similarly used.; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 45; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 154; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1,150; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: 0.

    Statutory Authority: Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2201, the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C 7101, et seq., and the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, 50 U.S.C. 2401, et seq.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 18, 2016. Steven Croley, General Counsel, United States Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06912 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Public Meeting To Inform the Design of a Consent-Based Siting Process for Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities AGENCY:

    Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is implementing a consent-based siting process to establish an integrated waste management system to transport, store, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. In a consent-based siting approach, DOE will work with communities, tribal governments and states across the country that express interest in hosting any of the facilities identified as part of an integrated waste management system. As part of this process, the Department is hosting a series of public meetings to engage communities and individuals and discuss the development of a consent-based approach to managing our nation's nuclear waste. A public meeting will be held in Atlanta, GA on April 11, 2016.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Monday April 11, 2016 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Informal poster sessions will be held from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. EDT and again after 5:00 p.m. EDT. Department officials will be available to discuss consent-based siting during the poster sessions.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center, 800 Spring Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30308. To register for this meeting and to review the agenda for the meeting, please go to energy.gov/consentbasedsiting.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for further information should be sent to [email protected] or to Michael Reim at 202-586-2981. Updated information on this and other planned public meetings on consent based siting will be posted at energy.gov/consentbasedsiting.

    If you are unable to attend a public meeting or would like to further discuss ideas for consent-based siting, please request an opportunity for us to speak with you. The Department will do its best to accommodate such requests and help arrange additional opportunities to engage. To learn more about nuclear energy, nuclear waste, and ongoing technical work please go to energy.gov/consentbasedsiting.

    Privacy Act: Data collected via the mechanisms listed above will not be protected from the public view in any way.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2016. Andrew Griffith, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fuel Cycle Technologies, Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06914 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects and Colorado River Storage Project 2025 General Power Marketing Criteria—Extension of Public Comment Period AGENCY:

    Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of extension of public comment period for the Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP).

    SUMMARY:

    Western Area Power Administration (Western), Colorado River Storage Project Management Center (CRSP MC), a Federal power marketing agency of the Department of Energy, is extending the public comment period on its Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP. This Federal Register notice (FRN) extends the public comment period for the Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP contained in Western's December 16, 2015, FRN.

    DATES:

    The public comment period for the Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP has been extended from March 30, 2016, to May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments regarding the Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP to Ms. Lynn Jeka, CRSP Manager, Western Area Power Administration, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1580. Comments may also be faxed to (801) 524-5017, or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Parker Wicks, Public Utilities Specialist, or Mr. Steve Mullen, Public Utilities Specialist, at Western Area Power Administration, CRSP Management Center, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1580, telephone (801) 524-5493, or email to [email protected] Information can also be found at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/PowerMarketing/Pages/Proposed-2025-Salt-Lake-City-Area-Integrated-Projects-Marketing-Plan.aspx.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On December 16, 2015, Western published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 78222) announcing its Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP. In that notice, the public comment period was reported to close March 30, 2016. After clarifying questions were received during its Public Information Meeting held January 14, 2016, in Salt Lake City, Utah, Western has decided to extend the public comment period from the previously published public comment period closing of March 30, 2016, to May 31, 2016. This additional time will allow Western to post the results of its preliminary determination of the 2025 SLCA/IP Marketable Resource, which are expected to be posted for review on or before May 3, 2016, at https://www.wapa.gov/regions/CRSP/PowerMarketing/Pages/Proposed-2025-Salt-Lake-City-Area-Integrated-Projects-Marketing-Plan.aspx. This extension will also provide interested parties an additional opportunity to consult with Western and to comment on the Proposed 2025 Marketing Plan for the SLCA/IP.

    Dated: March 21, 2016. Mark A. Gabriel, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06917 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank) SUMMARY:

    The Advisory Committee was established by P.L. 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the report on competitiveness of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.

    Time and Place: Thursday, April 7, 2016 from 7:30 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in the Cabinet Room—lobby level, 2500 Calvert Street NW., Washington, DC 20008.

    Agenda: Agenda items include updates for the Advisory Committee members regarding: past recommendations and 2016 recommendations, EXIMs business and pipeline, and EXIMs report on competitiveness to Congress.

    Public Participation: The following portions of the meeting will be open to public participation: 7:30 a.m.-8 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m., and 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the sign-in table in the meeting room, you may contact Tia Pitt at [email protected] to have your name placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please email Tia Pitt at [email protected] by April 1, 2016.

    Members of the Press: For members of the Press planning to attend the meeting please email Tia Pitt at [email protected] to be placed on an attendee list.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, contact Tia Pitt, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, at [email protected].

    Lloyd Ellis, Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06907 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-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 April 12, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Strategic Value Investors, LP, and its general partner, Strategic Value Bank Partners, LLC, both in Beachwood, Ohio; Benjamin Mackovak, Cleveland, Ohio; and Martin E. Adams, Naples, Florida; to acquire voting shares of First Citizens Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Foothills Community Bank, both in Dawsonville, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2016. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06899 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Management Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Alison Hunt at (301) 427-1244 or [email protected]

    If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Wednesday, April 6, 2016. The agenda, roster, and minutes are available from Ms. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Ms. Campbell's phone number is (301) 427-1554.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Purpose

    The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.

    II. Agenda

    On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, there will be a subcommittee meeting for the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. The subcommittee meeting is open the public. The Council meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair and approval of previous Council summary notes. The meeting is open to the public and will be available via webcast at www.webconferences.com/ahrq. The meeting will begin with an update on AHRQ's current research, programs, and initiatives. Following this update, the agenda will include a presentation on AHRQ's work in Primary Care and a discussion on possible new research ideas that AHRQ could pursue to improve health care delivery and outcomes. The final agenda will be available on the AHRQ Web site at www.AHRQ.gov no later than Friday, April 15, 2016.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06882 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-0853] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted 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 notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Asthma Information Reporting System (AIRS)—Revision—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In 1999, the CDC began its National Asthma Control Program (NACP), a public health approach to address the burden of asthma. The program supports the goals and objectives of “Healthy People 2020” for asthma and is based on the public health principles of surveillance, partnerships, interventions, and evaluation. The CDC requests to revise the “Asthma Information Reporting System (AIRS)” (OMB Control No. 0920-0853; expiration date 5/31/2016). Specifically, CDC seeks to make the following changes:

    • Rather than using the web-based system, state awardees will use AIRS Excel spreadsheets to report CDC-developed process and outcome performance measures.

    • The performance measures will be collected annually, rather than biannually, as previously approved.

    The goal of this data collection is to provide NCEH with routine information about the activities and performance of the state and territorial awardees funded under the NACP through an annual reporting system. NACP requires awardees to report activities related to partnerships, infrastructure, evaluation and interventions to monitor the state programs' performance in reducing the burden of asthma. AIRS also includes two forms to collect aggregate ED and HD data from awardees.

    AIRS was first approved by OMB in 2010 to collect data in a web-based system to monitor and guide participating state health departments. Since implementation in 2010, AIRS and the technical assistance provided by CDC staff have provided states with uniform data reporting methods and linkages to other states' asthma program information and resources. Thus, AIRS has saved state resources and staff time when asthma programs embark on asthma activities similar to those done elsewhere.

    In the past three-years, AIRS data were used to:

    • Serve as a resource to NCEH when addressing congressional, departmental and institutional inquiries.

    • Help the branch align its current interventions with CDC goals and allowed the monitoring of progress toward these goals.

    • Allow the NACP and the state asthma programs to make more informed decisions about activities to achieve objectives.

    • Facilitate communication about interventions across states, and enable inquiries regarding interventions by populations with a disproportionate burden, age groups, geographic areas and other variables of interest.

    A revision to this data collection is necessary because: (1) The web-based reporting platform is no longer supported by CDC; (2) in collaboration with state asthma programs, reporting requirements have been prioritized to provide specific information on the two main strategies in the associated Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA): Services and health systems strategies; (3) CDC now endorses limiting state program reporting to once a year; and (4) the number of state awardees has been reduced from 34 to 23 states.

    There will be no cost for respondents other than their time to complete the three AIRS spreadsheets annually. The estimated annualized burden hours are 82.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • response
  • (hours)
  • State Asthma Program Awardees AIRS Performance Measures Reporting Spreadsheets 23 1 150/60 AIRS Emergency Department Visits Reporting Form 23 1 30/60 AIRS Hospital Discharge Reporting Forms 23 1 30/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06885 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-16CQ] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted 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 notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN)—Existing Information Collection in Use without an OMB Control Number—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Healthcare in the United States is a growing industry that employs more than 19 million workers with a substantial burden of occupational injuries and illnesses. In 2013, one in five workers in the healthcare and social assistance industry reported a nonfatal job-related injury. This is the highest number of non-fatal injuries reported among all private industries.

    U.S. healthcare facilities depend on surveillance data to track the incidence of injuries, identify risk factors, target prevention activities and evaluate interventions to reduce the occurrence of occupational injury among healthcare personnel. In 2012, to assist healthcare facilities to enhance capacity to use existing surveillance data, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) launched the Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN), a voluntary surveillance system developed specifically for healthcare personnel environment. OHSN is a free, and secure electronic occupational safety and health surveillance system that has provided U.S. healthcare facilities the ability to efficiently analyze their own occupational injury data while, at the same time, serving as a source for national surveillance by sharing their de-identified injury data with NIOSH. Unlike other national occupational surveillance systems, OHSN offers integrated approach to monitor standard occupational injuries among facility-based healthcare personnel in the U.S. and to provide timely, facility-level feedback to participants with benchmarking and analyses capabilities.

    OHSN collects two types of data from participating facilities. Facilities collect these data to meet specific regulatory or administrative requirements. Thus, no new data collection is required. Participating facilities provides OHSN—(1) a onetime enrollment form, requests information of the participating facility and is publically available information from American Hospital Association database; and (2) a monthly submission of occupational injury data collected in the previous month. These data are sent to OHSN via a web portal in a format using standardized data elements and value sets. No personal identifiable information is transmitted to OHSN. Data elements include: Injury time, location and surrounding circumstances of each injury event.

    Healthcare facilities download data through an OHSN-provided data conversion and mapping tools to upload the monthly occupational injury data.

    Each participating facilities has access to OHSN web portal, facilities are able to analyze workers current and historical worker injury data to benchmark their internal injury rates and trends against aggregate data from similar workplaces. In addition they are able to assess the impact of prevention efforts on occupational health and safety over time using integrated data analysis and visualization tools (charts and graphs).

    OHSN currently tracks three common, serious, and preventable categories of traumatic injury to healthcare personnel: Slips, trips and falls; musculoskeletal disorders resulting from patient handling and movement events; and workplace violence. OHSN will add new modules about exposure to sharps injury and blood and body fluids exposures.

    NIOSH analyzes the data submitted to OHSN to conduct surveillance and to produce periodic aggregate reports on the occurrence of and risk factors for occupational injuries among all OHSN facilities.

    OHSN has been operating continuously and receiving voluntary monthly reports from 116 participating facilities since 2012 and is projected to enroll total of 900 facilities in the next three years. Current burden estimates were derived using the estimated number of facilities participating in OHSN for each facility type and form. OSHA reporting mandates were taken into account when estimating the number of facilities (participants) and the annual number of responses per facility. Total burden hours for this request is 185.

    NIOSH seeks approval for an OMB control number to continue this important work. There is no cost to the respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • U.S. healthcare facilities Occupational Health Safety Network (OHSN) 300 12 3/60 U.S. healthcare facilities Enrollment form 300 1 1/60 Total
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06884 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10434] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, and to allow a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR Email: [email protected].

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid and CHIP Program (MACPro); Use: The MACPro system is being transitioned to become the system of record that will be used by both state and CMS officials to: Improve the state application and federal review processes, improve federal program management of Medicaid programs and CHIP, and standardize Medicaid program data. Specifically, it will be used by state agencies to: Submit and amend Medicaid state plans, CHIP state plans and ADPs (Information System Advanced Planning Documents); submit applications and amendments for state waivers, demonstrations, and benchmark and grant programs; and submit reporting data.

    Among the collections submitted for approval under MACPro will be relevant collections that are currently approved under our generic umbrella information collection request (CMS-10398; OMB control number 0938-1148), certain collections approved as a regular stand-alone information collections, and upcoming collections. A list of those collections is included in our PRA package.

    While currently approved by OMB under the regular PRA process which requires 60- and 30-day comment periods, CMS is proposing to have the umbrella of MACPro collections approved under OMB's generic process which would—in most cases—eliminate the need for the 60- and 30-day comment periods. Although the formal 60- and 30-day public comment periods would be eliminated, the public may continue to comment on any of the MACPro collections at any time.

    Form Number: CMS-10434 (OMB control number: 0938-1188); Frequency: Monthly, yearly, quarterly, semi-annually, once, or occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 3,360; Total Annual Hours: 96,844. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Annette Pearson at 410-786-6858).

    Dated: March 23, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06922 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 2015 RECS LIHEAP Administrative Data Matching.

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) block grant (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.) was established under Title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 97. The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) administers LIHEAP at the federal level.

    The LIHEAP statute requires HHS to report to Congress annually on program impacts on recipient and eligible households. The primary program goals, as articulated in the statute, are to ensure that benefits are targeted to those households where the greatest program impacts are expected, and to assure that timely resources are available to households experiencing home energy crises.

    OCS is seeking authorization to collect data from all State LIHEAP grantees and the District of Columbia that will allow OCS to identify LIHEAP recipients that responded to the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) conducts this survey to provide periodic national and regional data on residential energy use in the United States. OCS uses RECS data to furnish Congress and the Administration with important national and regional descriptive data on the energy needs of low-income households. Specific data elements OCS is seeking to collect are detailed below.

    State LIHEAP grantees will be asked to furnish data for LIHEAP recipient households that reside in areas included in the RECS sample.

    For each household, report the following:

    • Name • Address (including ZIP code) • Household or Client ID • Telephone Number • Household Size • Gross Income • Heating assistance awarded? • Amount of heating assistance • Date of heating assistance • Cooling assistance awarded? • Amount of cooling assistance • Date of cooling assistance • Crisis Assistance awarded? • Amount of crisis assistance • Date of crisis assistance • Other Assistance awarded? • Amount of other assistance • Date of other assistance • Presence of children 5 or younger • Presence of adult 60 or older • Presence of disabled

    The following are additional optional data items that grantees can provide if the data are available in your database:

    • Tenancy (i.e., own or rent) • Type(s) of fuel used • Heat included in rent

    This data will help ACF to analyze specific information for the LIHEAP recipient population, including information related to benefits targeting, energy usage, and energy insecurity, and it will support analysis of LIHEAP data for the annual Report to Congress and the annual LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook.

    Respondents: ACF published a Federal Register notice on December 23, 2015 soliciting 60 days of public comment on requiring State grantees to provide household-level data for this effort. ACF didn't receive comments on this notice.

    Annual Burden Estimates

    The table below shows the estimated reporting burden for the RECS LIHEAP administrative data matching effort. These estimates are based on a small number of interviews with grantees.

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Administrative data request 49 1 24 1,176

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,176.

    Additional Information

    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment

    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06915 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Seventh Annual Predictive Safety Testing Consortium/Food and Drug Administration Scientific Workshop; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), in cosponsorship with the Critical Path Institute (C-Path), is announcing a public scientific workshop to discuss the impact of safety biomarkers on drug development. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the following issues: Application of toxicometrics as a translational safety strategy that integrates nonclinical and clinical safety approaches; uses of rodent and non-rodent nonclinical species in biomarker qualification; and assay validation aspects during biomarker development and qualification.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on April 25, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503 A/B), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    The FDA Conference Center is a federal facility and is located on the White Oak campus and like all federal facilities employs security procedures. Entrance for scientific workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacqueline Brooks-Leighton, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, Rm. 4521, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-5292, FAX: 301-796-9907, email: jacqueline.brooks-leighton,@fda.hhs.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    FDA and C-Path have expressed a willingness to leverage their combined strengths to develop and apply predictive safety testing biomarkers in drug development. This annual public workshop is intended to bring together leading academic experts, interested pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, patient advocacy groups, and non-profit organizations.

    This meeting will offer the opportunity to provide updates on the progress made in various biomarker development areas by the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium, and to discuss issues related to the regulatory aspects of qualification and uptake of biomarkers in drug development, as well as roadblocks to the sharing of biomarker data by the scientific community.

    II. Attendance, Registration, and Accommodations

    There is no fee to attend the meeting, but attendees must register in advance. Space is limited, and registration will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Onsite registration on the day of the workshop is not guaranteed but may be possible if space is available. For questions regarding registration, please contact Stephanie Codd Anderson, 520-647-8376, email: [email protected], at the Critical Path Institute.

    Persons interested in attending this meeting in person must register online by April 11, 2016 at http://www.cvent.com/d/2fqzl2/4W.

    FDA has verified the Web address, but is not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the Federal Register. Interested persons without Internet access should contact Stephanie Codd Anderson at 520-647-8376 to register.

    The public workshop will also be available to be viewed online via webcast at https://collaboration.fda.gov/pstc0416/.

    Workshop attendees with special needs due to a disability should contact Stephanie Codd Anderson, 520-647-8376, email: [email protected], at the Critical Path Institute at least 7 days before the scientific workshop.

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations.

    There will not be a transcript for this meeting.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06889 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0969] Authorization of Emergency Use of an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Diagnosis of Zika Virus Infection; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization) for an in vitro diagnostic device for diagnosis of Zika virus infection in response to the Zika virus outbreak in the Americas. FDA issued this Authorization under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as requested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Authorization contains, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized in vitro diagnostic device. The Authorization follows the February 26, 2016, determination by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves Zika virus. On the basis of such determination, the HHS Secretary declared on February 26, 2016, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic tests for detection of Zika virus and/or diagnosis of Zika virus infection subject to the terms of any authorization issued under the FD&C Act. The Authorization, which includes an explanation of the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.

    DATES:

    The Authorization is effective as of February 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written requests for single copies of the EUA to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the Authorization may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the Authorization.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmen Maher, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4347, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help assure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents; when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.

    Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (3) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or (4) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6b) sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad.

    Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the Federal Register a notice of each authorization, and each termination or revocation of an authorization, and an explanation of the reasons for the action. Section 564 of the FD&C Act permits FDA to authorize the introduction into interstate commerce of a drug, device, or biological product intended for use when the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use. Products appropriate for emergency use may include products and uses that are not approved, cleared, or licensed under sections 505, 510(k), or 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360(k), and 360e) or section 351 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262). FDA may issue an EUA only if, after consultation with the HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the Director of the CDC (to the extent feasible and appropriate given the applicable circumstances), FDA 1 concludes: (1) That an agent referred to in a declaration of emergency or threat can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; (2) that, based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that: (A) The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing (i) such disease or condition; or (ii) a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by a product authorized under section 564, approved or cleared under the FD&C Act, or licensed under section 351 of the PHS Act, for diagnosing, treating, or preventing such a disease or condition caused by such an agent; and (B) the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat such disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the agent or agents identified in a declaration under section 564(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act, if applicable; (3) that there is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating such disease or condition; and (4) that such other criteria as may be prescribed by regulation are satisfied.

    1 The Secretary of HHS has delegated the authority to issue an EUA under section 564 of the FD&C Act to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

    No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act. Because the statute is self-executing, regulations or guidance are not required for FDA to implement the EUA authority.

    II. EUA Request for an In Vitro Diagnostic Device for Diagnosis of Zika Virus Infection

    On February 26, 2016, the Secretary of HHS determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves Zika virus. On February 26, 2016, under section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act, and on the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of in vitro diagnostic tests for detection of Zika virus and/or diagnosis of Zika virus infection, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under section 564 of the FD&C Act. Notice of the determination and declaration of the Secretary was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2016 (81 FR 10878). On February 22, 2016, CDC requested, and on February 26, 2016, FDA issued, an EUA for the CDC Zika Immunoglobulin M (IgM) Antibody Capture Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (Zika MAC-ELISA), subject to the terms of the Authorization.

    III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorization are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    IV. The Authorization

    Having concluded that the criteria for issuance of the Authorization under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has authorized the emergency use of an in vitro diagnostic device for diagnosis of Zika virus infection subject to the terms of the Authorization. The Authorization in its entirety (not including the authorized versions of the fact sheets and other written materials) follows and provides an explanation of the reasons for its issuance, as required by section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act:

    BILLING CODE 4164-01-P EN28MR16.021 EN28MR16.022 EN28MR16.023 EN28MR16.024 EN28MR16.025 EN28MR16.026 EN28MR16.027 EN28MR16.028 EN28MR16.029 BILLING CODE 4164-01-C Dated: March 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06888 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority

    This notice amends Part R of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (60 FR 56605, as amended November 6, 1995; as last amended at 81 FR 10874-10875 dated March 2, 2016).

    This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Office of Operations (RB), Office of Information Technology (RB5). Specifically, this notice: (1) Updates the functional statement for the Office of the Director, Office of Information Technology (RB5); and (2) updates the functional statement for the Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (RB56) within the Office of Information Technology (RB5).

    Chapter RB5—Office of Information Technology

    Section RQ-20, Function

    Delete the functional statement for the Office of the Director (RB5) and for the Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (RB56) and replace in their entirety.

    This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Office of Operations (RB), Office of Information Technology (RB5). Specifically, this notice: (1) Updates the functional statement for the Office of the Director (RB5); and (2) updates the functional statement for the Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (RB56) within the Office of Information Technology (RB5).

    Office of the Director and Chief Information Officer (RB5)

    The Office of Information Technology is responsible for the organization, management, and administrative functions necessary to carry out responsibilities including: (1) Architects, deploys, and supports IT infrastructure; (2) provides IT end user support; (3) develops enterprise and custom applications; (4) provides investment control, budget formulation and execution, policy development, strategic and tactical planning, and performance monitoring; (5) provides leadership in the development, review, and implementation of policies and procedures to promote improved information technology (IT) management capabilities and best practices throughout HRSA; (6) coordinates IT workforce issues and works closely with the Office of Administrative Services on IT recruitment and training issues; and (7) oversees HRSA security operations and management program.

    The Office of the Director is also responsible for the IT business function including: (1) Provides oversight and management of IT budget formulation and execution; (2) serves as the focal point to OIT's contracts; (3) provides centralized procurement services for the Office of Information Technology; and (4) serves as the coordinator for OIT's Inter-agency and Service Level Agreements.

    Chief Information Security Officer

    The Chief Information Security Officer, reporting to the Chief Information Officer, provides leadership for and collaborates with Agency staff to oversee the implementation of security and privacy policy in the management of their IT systems, and plans all activities associated with the Federal Information Security Management Act or other Agency security and privacy initiatives including: (1) Implements, coordinates, and administers security and privacy programs to protect the information resources of HRSA in compliance with legislation, Executive Orders, directives of the Office of Management and Budget, or other mandated requirements; (2) executes the Agency's Risk Management Program, and evaluates and assists with the implementation of safeguards to protect major information systems and IT infrastructure; and (3) manages the development, implementation, and evaluation of HRSA's information technology security and privacy training programs to meet requirements mandated by the Office of Management and Budget.

    Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (RB56)

    The Division of Enterprise Solutions and Applications Management (DESAM) develops the HRSA grants program Electronic Handbook System (EHB) and other customized software applications to meet customer and mission needs. DESAM evaluates business processes, develops and integrates systems, and functional and data architectures based on requirements. DESAM develops, maintains and supports software applications including Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) applications, and collaboration tools. DESAM manages the systems development lifecycle by facilitating business process engineering efforts, systems requirements definition, and provides oversight for application change management control. DESAM provides enterprise application user training, and application customer support, and is responsible for end-to-end application building, deployment, and maintenance and data security assurance.

    Delegations of Authority

    All delegations of authority and re-delegations of authority made to HRSA officials that were in effect immediately prior to this reorganization, and that are consistent with this reorganization, shall continue in effect pending further re-delegation.

    This reorganization is effective upon date of signature.

    Dated: March 21, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06971 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service American Indians Into Nursing; Nursing Program

    Announcement Type: New and Competing Continuation Limited Competition.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2016-IHS-NU-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.970.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: June 1, 2016.

    Review Date: June 15, 2016.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: August 1, 2016.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement applications for American Indians into Nursing. This program is authorized under section 1616e of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 94-437, as amended (IHCIA). This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.970.

    Background

    The IHS, an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for providing Federal health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). The mission of the IHS is to raise the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of AI/AN. The IHCIA authorizes the IHS to provide grants and cooperative agreements to colleges, universities, and other entities to develop and maintain nursing education programs and recruit individuals to become registered nurses, certified nurse midwives, and nurse practitioners who will provide services to AI/AN people. The programs administered are designed to attract and recruit qualified AI/AN individuals into nursing and advance practice nursing professions. The American Indians into Nursing program cooperative agreements or grant is used by the educational institution to provide IHS scholarships to students enrolled in nursing education programs.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to recruit, retain, graduate and increase the number of registered nurses, certified nurse midwives and nurse practitioners who deliver health care services to AI/AN communities. The primary objectives of this cooperative agreement grant award are to: (1) Recruit and train AI/AN individuals to be registered nurses; (2) facilitate associate degree registered nurses becoming baccalaureate prepared registered nurses; (3) provide a program that prepares practicing registered nurses for advance nursing education; (4) provide a program that encourages registered nurses and advance practice nurses to provide or continue to provide, health care services to AI/NA communities; and (5) provide scholarships to individuals that will cover tuition, books, fees, room and board, stipend for living expenses, or other expenses incurred in connection with nursing or advance practice nursing programs.

    The funding opportunity announcement solicits applications that provide a preference to AI/AN students and a curriculum with a rural health and public health focus.

    Limited Competition Justification

    The limitation is based on IHS geographically high need areas: Navajo Area (NM, AZ) Billings Area (MT, WY), Great Plains Area (SD, ND, NE., IA), Albuquerque Area (CO, NM NV), and Phoenix Area (NV, UT, AZ). Historically and currently, these IHS areas have a high need for both registered nurses and advance practice nurses. These IHS areas are designated by the Health Resource and Service Administration (HRSA) as Health Professions Shortage Areas (HPSA). Additionally, many of these states have American Indian Serving Institutions (Tribal colleges and universities) that feed into universities with nursing programs.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2016 is approximately $1,669,697. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $300,000 and $400,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately five awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project period is for three years and will run consecutively from August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2019.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the HHS are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency, IHS, is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    (1) IHS assigned program official will work with project director to ensure timely receipt of progress and audit reports and to ensure program compliance.

    (2) IHS program official will provide programmatic technical assistance to grantees as needed.

    (3) IHS program official will coordinate and conduct site visits as needed, if funds are available for travel.

    (4) IHS program official will conduct semi-annual conference calls with grantees and students.

    (5) IHS program official will work with the Division of Grants Management (DGM) to ensure all goals and objectives of the program are met.

    (6) IHS program official will provide American Indians into Nursing programs and scholarship recipients with an online handbook for IHS scholarship service obligation requirements.

    (7) IHS program official will initiate default proceedings within 90 days after receiving notification from the program director that a student has been dismissed from the nursing program, withdrawn from school, failed to graduate with a nursing degree, or failed to get licensed and begin obligated service time within 90 days of graduation.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    (1) Awardee must designate a program director to manage the project being supported by the grant. The program director is responsible for the day-to-day management of the program and accountability for the proper conduct of grant-related activities.

    (2) The program director must have a current curriculum vitae on file with DGM and the IHS program official.

    (3) Notification in writing must be provided to the IHS program official and the DGM for changes or replacement of the program director.

    (4) Awardee must provide scholarships, stipends, room and board and other expenses incurred in connection with the program to individuals enrolled in the nursing program as stated in 25 U.S.C. 1616e(b)(2).

    (5) Awardee will become familiar with the IHS service obligation policy and will thoroughly review the IHS service obligation contract with the IHS scholarship recipients.

    (6) Awardee is required to maintain program records for IHS scholarship recipients using a secure web based system during the awarded project of performance.

    (7) Awardee will assist IHS program official in monitoring fulfillment of all contractual obligations incurred by the nursing program and IHS scholarship recipient.

    (8) Awardee is expected to collaborate with other American Indians into Nursing grant programs to share best practices, successes, and challenges of the program.

    (9) Awardee will complete an audit report at the end of each academic year.

    (10) Awardee will adhere to the terms and conditions of the IHS nursing scholarship program, scholarship awards are for a 1-year period; additional scholarship support may be awarded to each eligible student for up to four years (maximum).

    (11) Awardee will ensure that IHS scholarship recipients review the American Indians into Nursing and INPSYCH Scholarship Recipients IHS Grants Handbook 2015-2016 and carry out their IHS service obligation after successful completion of their nursing program.

    (12) Awardee will ensure that IHS scholarship recipient will notify the program director and IHS program official of academic status, change in information, notice of graduation, preferred assignment, and placement update.

    (13) Awardee will ensure that IHS scholarship recipient maintains communication with IHS program official by submitting status reports every six months from time of hire at IHS or Tribal health care facility until service obligation is complete.

    III. Eligibility Information I. 1. Eligibility

    The following entities are eligible:

    (a) Accredited public or private schools of nursing,

    (b) accredited Tribally controlled community colleges and Tribally controlled post-secondary vocational institutions, and

    (c) nurse midwife programs and nurse practitioners programs, that are provided by any public or private institution.

    All schools of nursing must be fully accredited without restrictions by a national nurse educational accrediting body or state approval body recognized by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education for the purposes of nursing education. The schools offering a degree in nurse midwifery must provide verification of accreditation by the American College of Nurse Midwives. Tribally-controlled community colleges nursing programs and post-secondary vocational institutions must be fully accredited by an appropriate recognized nursing accrediting body without restrictions.

    (a) In accordance with the IHCIA, funding preference will be given to applicants who have: (1) Programs that provide a preference to AI/AN; (2) programs that train nurse midwives or nurse practitioners; and (3) programs that are interdisciplinary, i.e. with medicine, pharmacy, dental and behavioral health students.

    (b) Priorities: All complete, eligible applications will be considered. If more than one university and college application is received from an IHS area, only one award will be made to that particular area providing a DNP, MSN, BSN, or ADN program.

    1. Priority I: At least two awards to public or private college or university, school of nursing which provides DNP, MSN, BSN, ADN (registered nurse, nurse practitioner, nurse midwife) degrees, not to exceed $400,000 per year up to a project period of five years.

    2. Priority II: At least three awards to a Tribally-controlled community college, school of nursing which provides BSN and ADN (registered nurse) degrees, not to exceed $400,000 per year up to a project period of five years.

    (c) Other preferences: Schools of nursing that have transcultural, cultural competency, and rural and public health care focus.

    Current American Indians into Nursing grantees are eligible to apply for competing continuation funding under this announcement and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of the American Indians into Nursing cooperative agreement in order to receive funding under this announcement.

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the DGM of this decision.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e., FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed 30 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal resolution(s).

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all key personnel.

    • Contractor/consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost (IDC) rate agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget Audit, as required by 45 CFR part 75, subpart F or other required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 30 pages and must: Be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ × 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 30 pages will be reviewed. The 30 page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (10 page limitation)

    Section 1: Needs

    Present the comprehensive framework of the proposed American Indians into Nursing program. Clearly describe the unmet AI/AN nursing workforce needs in AI/AN communities. Describe the social determinants and health disparities that impact AI/AN communities and how the proposed program will serve the IHS and Tribal health care programs as well as support to IHS scholarship recipients. Discuss how these social determinants have historically effected access to AI/AN health care and have impacted AI/AN student's access to education specifically nursing education. Include the purpose and background of the program and prior experience with nurse recruitment programs.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (10 page limitation) Section 1: Program Plans

    American Indians into Nursing program applicants must develop a comprehensive, succinct, well organized work plan to address the proposed project. The information should include the elements below but is not limited to the following: (1) Describe the administration of the program-strategies, activities, methods, techniques, or steps that will be use to achieve objectives in proposed project; (2) describe the strategy to attract pre-nursing students and recruit, retain, and graduate AI/AN nursing students and identify actions to monitor IHS scholarship recipients post-graduation for IHS service obligation; (3) describe how the activities of the project are defined by objectives and how the project will achieve the desired outcomes; (4) include a plan to achieve sustainability after the cooperative agreement is complete; (5) describe how the program will incorporate support to AI/AN nursing students who have experienced the social determinants in AI/AN communities; and (6) describe how the program will support AI/AN students in meeting their social, physical, spiritual and academic needs.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Applicant must provide a complete program evaluation plan that describes the projects methodology and strategies for assessing the progress of the objectives and outcomes of their program. The evaluation should address the successes, failures, and continuing improvements.

    Part C: Program Report (10 page limitation)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last project period for previous awardees.

    Previous awardees shall include objectives, strategies, and a brief description of the following for program function and or activity involved: (1) Compare actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period; (2) provide description of internal and external collaboration, new resources secured, interventions, successes, barriers identified and plans for the next quarter (academic year); (3) indicate reasons for slippage where established goals were not met and plan of action to overcome slippages; (4) indicate the number of current AI/AN recipients in the program and their academic status; and (5) indicate the number of AI/AN recipients placed in IHS and Tribal facilities and whom have completed their service obligations.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 24 months. Please identify and summarize recent major project activities of the work done during the project period. Program activities shall include: recruitment, retention and support activities to student, graduate and evaluation demonstrating performance measures.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The page limitation should not exceed five pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the American Indian into Nursing program will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 30 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 70 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (10 points)

    (1) Applications must justify overall need of the program and clearly demonstrate the administration of the cooperative agreement, and indicate prior experience with similar programs.

    (2) Describe the target population receiving IHS scholarships (preference will be given to schools of nursing that recruit, retain and graduate AI/AN veterans and veterans who have medical military experience).

    (3) Describe how the program will increase the number of registered nurses, nurse midwives and nurse practitioners in IHS.

    (4) Describe relevance of the program relating the objectives to the purposes of the cooperative agreement.

    (5) Describe the differences between the current and proposed activities (previous awardees).

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (40 points)

    Applications must clearly state specific, time-framed, measurable objectives for the goals related to the purpose of the IHS nursing cooperative agreement.

    (1) Objectives:

    (a) Describe how the program will increase the number of AI/AN nursing students that are recruited, retained and graduated from school of nursing.

    (b) Describe how the program will recruit AI/AN students who are veterans and veterans who have experience as an emergency medical technician (EMT), hospital corpsman, paramedic/military medic, license vocational/practical nurse and nurses (associate or diploma nurse).

    (c) Describe how the program will offer or establish formal bridge program agreements between Tribal colleges, universities.

    (d) Describe how the program will provide a program that increases the skills of, and provide continuing education to registered nurses, nurse practitioners and nurse midwives.

    (e) Describe how the program will assist IHS program official with job placement and track the IHS scholarship recipient's service obligation.

    (2) Methodology:

    (a) Describe strategies, activities, steps, timelines, and staff for implementation of proposal of projects.

    (b) Describe the methodology of how IHS scholarships will be awarded to nursing students.

    (c) Provide evidence supporting the proposed methodologies using historical data and prior experiences.

    (3) Approach:

    (a) Describes how the program will establish or collaborate with existing IHS and Tribal programs and colleges.

    (i) To establish an agreement for clinical rotations.

    (ii) To establish a faculty exchange program to enhance cultural competency and faculty strength.

    (iii) Offer formal bridge programs agreements between Tribal colleges and universities so as to provide a program that increases the skills of, and provide continuing education to nurses, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives.

    (b) Include challenges that are likely to be encountered or have been a challenge in designing and implementing the activities in the work plan and approaches that will be used to resolve challenges.

    (c) Describe how the program will sustain the project after the period of performance ends. Include in the sustainability plan the barriers to achieving self-sufficiency.

    C. Program Evaluation (30 points)

    Applicant must include an evaluation plan that describes strategies for assessing the progress and outcomes of their projects. The evaluation plan should be linked to the objectives and purpose of the cooperative agreement. The proposed project shall have evaluation measures that demonstrate how the program is meeting identified goals and objectives where programs can collect, track, and report performance measures on a semi-annual basis and for periodic audit reports. Applicants must include how the program will collect and manage student scholarship data. Applicants must describe any potential obstacles for implementing the program performance evaluation and how those obstacles will be addressed.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 points)

    Provide information on applicant's organization, philosophy, and practice methods. Describe how all will contribute to the ability to conduct program requirements and meet American Indians into Nursing program/cooperative agreement purpose, objectives, and expectations. Include nursing accreditation documentation. All schools of nursing that are associated with the project and have conferring degrees must be accredited.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (5 points)

    (1) Personnel costs: Applicants shall identify one program director. Program director must be a licensed registered nurse.

    (2) Key support personnel: Provide names, title, position description, salary, and fringe benefits. Administrative cost is limited to 25% of the award.

    (3) Consultants: Provide names, affiliations and qualifications of each consultant, including expected rate of compensation, travel, per diem and other related costs.

    (4) Travel: Name conferences or other recruitment events, airline tickets, lodging, per diem, booth, public transportation, or other related costs.

    (5) Equipment: Must be related to the objectives of the project, retained by awardee, use in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreement award, and must comply with procurement requirements for Federal grant and cooperative agreements.

    (6) Scholarships: Must cover tuition, fees, books, stipend, and other related educational expenses. The proposed project must use IHS scholarship funds in a manner that will meet the needs of eligible AI/AN students. The budget narrative must indicate the number of students to receive scholarship for each year of the cooperative agreement and the amount of each scholarship per student.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second and/or third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents can be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 70 points, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved but Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016, the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this Program Announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of IDC in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the IDC policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the grants management specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20857, (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Ofc: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp, (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or, Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371. Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Naomi Aspaas, BSN, RN, Program Official, Office of Human Resource, Division of Health Professions Support, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: OHR 11E53A, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-5710, Fax: (301) 443-1071, Email: [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Vanietta Armstrong, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-4792, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, Mail Stop: 09E70, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 443-9602, E-Mail: [email protected]

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: March 21, 2016. Elizabeth Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06969 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; 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 Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; IGNITE Coordinating Center.

    Date: April 18, 2016.

    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, 3rd Floor Conference Room, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 402-0838, [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. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 21, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06869 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Water Contaminants and Exposure Risks.

    Date: April 12, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Key Stone Building, 530 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27713.

    Contact Person: Janice B. Allen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Institute of Environmental Health Science, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30/Room 3170 B, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541-7556.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 22, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06872 Filed 3-25-16; 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: Medical Imaging Investigations.

    Date: February 18, 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: Mehrdad Mohseni, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5211, MSC 7854, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0484, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Brain Disorders and Clinical Neuroscience Integrated Review Group—Diseases and Pathophysiology of the Visual System Study Section.

    Date: February 25-26, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, CA 92109.

    Contact Person: Nataliya Gordiyenko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5202, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.435.1265, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 2—Translational Clinical Integrated Review Group: Cancer Immunopathology and Immunotherapy Study Section.

    Date: February 25-26, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Dupont Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Denise R Shaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6158, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0198, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Oncology 1-Basic Translational Integrated Review Group—Tumor Progression and Metastasis Study Section.

    Date: March 2-3, 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: Rolf Jakobi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6187, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-495-1718, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Alcohol, Drugs and Neurotoxicology.

    Date: March 2-3, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 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 Selmanoff, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5164, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1119, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR-13-327: Innovative Molecular Analysis Technology Development for Cancer Research and Clinical Care.

    Date: March 2, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Zhang-Zhi Hu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6186, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2414, [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 22, 2016 Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06868 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of an Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC or Committee) meeting.

    The purpose of the IACC meeting is to discuss committee business, agency updates and issues related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities. The meeting will highlight National Autism Awareness Month activities and the committee will discuss the 2016 update of the IACC Strategic Plan. The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible by webcast and conference call.

    Name of Committee: Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

    Type of Meeting: Open Meeting.

    Date: April 19, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.* Eastern Time * Approximate end time.

    Agenda: To discuss committee business, updates and issues related to ASD research and services activities. The committee will discuss the 2016 update of the IACC Strategic Plan.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Webcast Live: http://videocast.nih.gov/.

    Conference Call Access: Dial: 888-606-5948, Access code: 5993307.

    Cost: The meeting is free and open to the public.

    Registration: Pre-registration is recommended to expedite check-in. Seating in the meeting room is limited to room capacity and on a first come, first served basis. To register, please visit: www.iacc.hhs.gov.

    Deadlines: Notification of intent to present oral comments: Thursday, April 7, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET. Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: Thursday, April 12, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    Submission of written comments: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 by 5:00 p.m. ET.

    For IACC Public Comment guidelines please see: http://iacc.hhs.gov/public-comment/index.shtml.

    Access: Medical Center Metro Station (Red Line).

    Contact Person: Ms. Lina Perez, Office of Autism Research Coordination, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 6182A, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, Phone: 301-443-6040, Email: [email protected]

    Public Comments: Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 7, 2016, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations must submit a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement including a brief description of the organization represented by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Statements submitted will become a part of the public record. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments and presentations will be limited to three to five minutes per speaker, depending on the number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received, along with the required submission of the written/electronic statement by the specified deadline.

    In addition, any interested person may submit written public comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by sending the comments to the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, April 12, 2016. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. NIMH anticipates written public comments received by 5:00 p.m. ET, Thursday, April 12, 2016 will be presented to the Committee prior to the meeting for the Committee's consideration. Any written comments received after the 5:00 p.m. EST, April 12, 2016 deadline through April 18, 2016 will be provided to the Committee either before or after the meeting, depending on the volume of comments received and the time required to process them in accordance with privacy regulations and other applicable Federal policies. All written public comments and oral public comment statements received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record.

    In the 2009 IACC Strategic Plan, the IACC listed the “Spirit of Collaboration” as one of its core values, stating that, “We will treat others with respect, listen to diverse views with open minds, discuss submitted public comments, and foster discussions where participants can comfortably offer opposing opinions.” In keeping with this core value, the IACC and the NIMH Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) ask that members of the public who provide public comments or participate in meetings of the IACC also seek to treat others with respect and consideration in their communications and actions, even when discussing issues of genuine concern or disagreement.

    Remote Access: The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an email to [email protected] or by phone at (240) 485-1998.

    Individuals who participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Security: In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit. Also as a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID at the meeting registration desk during the check-in process. Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered.

    Meeting schedule subject to change.

    Information about the IACC is available on the Web site: http://www.iacc.hhs.gov.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Carolyn Baum, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06873 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request; Investigating Factors That Influence Career Choice Among Neuroscience Trainees (NINDS) SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Institutes of Health, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 on pages 1436-1437 and allowed 60-days for public comment. (No public comments were received.) The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health, may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of the date of this publication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Paul A. Scott, Ph.D., Director, Office of Science Policy and Planning, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 31 Center Drive, Room 8A03, Bethesda, MD 20892-2540 or call non-toll-free number (301) 451-7964 or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Direct Comments to OMB: Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to the: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-6974, Attention: NIH Desk Officer.

    Proposed Collection: Investigating Factors that Influence Career Choice Among Neuroscience Trainees NINDS, 0925—NEW, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: In order to create and administer effective training programs for a diverse research workforce, NINDS needs information about the factors influencing career choice among different populations, particularly those underrepresented in the neuroscience workforce. Few studies have looked into factors influencing career choice among biomedical science trainees and how those career choices are influenced by social identity (race/ethnicity, gender, disability, disadvantaged background, and their intersection); none, to our knowledge, has reported this data specifically for neuroscientists. In pursuit of the training mission of NINDS, the Office of Training, Career Development, and Workforce Diversity (OTCDWD) administers programs to train the next generation of neuroscientists and to increase diversity of the neuroscience workforce. The information collected from this survey will help give NINDS a clearer picture of the environment and experiences of our trainee and potential trainee community. We are seeking a more accurate understanding of the career choices neuroscience trainees are making, and how well NINDS supports our trainees' needs and facilitates successful career trajectories. The survey will help improve our current programs, develop training opportunities, and provide programmatic support for current and future NINDS trainees.

    OMB approval is requested for 18 months. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 205.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hour
  • Predoctoral 314 1 20/60 105 Postdoctoral 200 1 20/60 67 Professional 100 1 20/60 33
    Dated: March 18, 2016. Walter Koroshetz, Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06961 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Investigator Initiated Extended Clinical Trial (R01).

    Date: April 22, 2016.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 5F100, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Andrea L. Wurster, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G33B National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20899823, (240) 669-5062, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 22, 2016. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06871 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel: Vascular Dysfunction in AD and Genetic Risk Factors.

    Date: May 6, 2016.

    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Alexander Parsadanian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 2C/212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel: 2016 Beeson Review

    Date: May 26, 2016

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications

    Place: DoubleTree by Hilton, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Alexander Parsadanian, Ph.D., Scientific Review Office, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 2C/212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS). Dated: March 22, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06870 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; U.S. Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study (NCI) SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.

    Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; 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; 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    To Submit Comments and For Further Information: To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact*: Michele M. Doody, Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7E566, Rockville, MD 20850, or call non-toll-free at 301-414-0308. Or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected] Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested in writing.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    Proposed Collection: US Nuclear Medicine Technologists Study, 0925-0656, Expiration Date 04/30/2015—REINSTATEMENT WITH CHANGE, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    Need and Use of Information Collection: We propose to collect, from U.S. nuclear medicine technologists (USNMT) certified after 1980, historical information about nuclear medicine procedures performed, radioisotopes used, related work and safety practices, and places of employment. The primary objectives of the current feasibility effort are: (a) To identify a cohort of nuclear medicine technologists certified after 1980 by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT) and/or the Nuclear Medicine Technologist Certification Board (NMTCB); and (b) to characterize individual organ-specific occupational radiation doses from radioisotope procedures. More recently certified technologists, who specialized in nuclear medicine, are expected to have greater exposures to radioisotopes than the general radiologic technologists in the U.S. Radiologic Technologist (USRT) cohort owing to performing such procedures with greater frequency. The proposed USNMT study would be a direct follow-on to the USRT Study to assess health risks associated with occupational exposure to these much higher-energy radiopharmaceuticals.

    OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 125.

    Table 1—Estimates of Annual Burden Hours Type of respondent Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Average time
  • per response
  • (hours)
  • Annual hour
  • burden
  • Nuclear Medicine Technologists Nuclear Medicine Questionnaire 250 1 20/60 83 Consent 250 1 10/60 42 Total 250 250 125
    Dated: March 21, 2016. Karla Bailey, Project Clearance Liaison, National Cancer Institute, NIH.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06867 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. 16-07] Tuna-Tariff Rate Quota; the Tariff-Rate Quota for Calendar Year 2016 Tuna Classifiable Under Subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of the quota quantity of tuna in airtight containers for Calendar Year 2016.

    SUMMARY:

    Each year, the tariff-rate quota for tuna described in subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), is calculated as a percentage of the tuna in airtight containers entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the preceding Calendar Year. This document sets forth the tariff-rate quota for Calendar Year 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The 2016 tariff-rate quota is applicable to tuna in airtight containers entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Headquarters Quota Branch, Interagency Collaboration Division, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC 20229-1155, (202) 863-6560.

    Background

    It has been determined that 15,350,636 kilograms of tuna in airtight containers may be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption at the rate of 6.0 percent ad valorem under subheading 1604.14.22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) during the Calendar Year 2016. Any such tuna which is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the current calendar year in excess of this quota will be dutiable at the rate of 12.5 percent ad valorem under subheading 1604.14.30 HTSUS.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Brenda B. Smith, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06944 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2015-0068] National Protection and Programs Directorate; National Protection and Programs Directorate Seeks Comments on Cyber Incident Data Repository White Papers AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) announces that it is seeking comments on three white papers prepared by NPPD staff from any interested party, including, but not limited to: members of the cybersecurity and insurance communities; chief information security officers (CISOs); chief security officers (CSOs); academia; Federal, State, and local governments; industry; and professional organizations/societies. Links to the white papers are posted on the cybersecurity insurance section of DHS.gov: http://www.dhs.gov/publication/cyber-incident-data-and-analysis-working-group-white-papers. Comments will assist NPPD further refine the content of the white papers to address the critical need for information sharing as a means to create a more robust cybersecurity insurance marketplace and improve enterprise cyber hygiene practices across the public and private sectors.

    DATES:

    The suggested dates for submission of comments on the white papers are: March 24, 2016 through May 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the white papers must be submitted to NPPD via email to the following address: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Shabat, Director, Performance Management, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications at 703-235-5338 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Cybersecurity insurance is designed to mitigate losses from a variety of cyber incidents, including data breaches, business interruption, and network damage. A robust cybersecurity insurance market could help reduce the number of successful cyber attacks by: (1) Promoting the adoption of preventative measures in return for more coverage; and (2) encouraging the implementation of best practices by basing premiums on an insured's level of self-protection. Many companies forego available policies; however, citing as rationales the perceived high cost of those policies, confusion about what they cover, and uncertainty that their organizations will suffer a cyber attack. In recent years, NPPD has engaged key stakeholders to address this emerging cyber risk area.

    Between October 2012 and April 2014, DHS NPPD conducted several workshops, which brought together a diverse group of private and public sector stakeholders—including insurers, risk managers, CISOs, critical infrastructure owners, and social scientists. Workshop participants examined the current state of the cybersecurity insurance market and how to best advance its capacity to incentivize better cyber risk management.

    During those workshops, participants expressed strong support for the creation of a trusted cyber incident data repository. As envisioned, the repository would store, aggregate, and analyze cyber incident data relevant to the cyber risk management community, including risk mitigation experts (CISOs, CSOs, cybersecurity solutions providers); risk transfer experts (insurers); and other cybersecurity subject matter experts (the academic and scientific communities). As further envisioned, DHS or other Federal departments or agencies would not build or manage such a repository. A resulting repository could potentially be managed by a private organization.

    In February 2015, as a follow-on to the workshops, NPPD established a Cyber Incident Data and Analysis Working Group (CIDAWG), comprised of CISOs and CSOs from various critical infrastructure sectors, insurers, and other cybersecurity professionals. The CIDAWG is currently exploring how anonymous cyber incident data sharing could help grow the cybersecurity insurance marketplace through a legally compliant, privacy respecting, and trusted cyber incident data repository and repository data supported analyses. In turn, this would work to improve cybersecurity for U.S. public sector agencies and private sector companies. To accomplish this, the CIDAWG has worked to develop key findings about:

    1. The value proposition of a cyber incident data repository;

    2. The cyber incident data points that should be shared into a repository to support needed analysis;

    3. Overcoming perceived obstacles to sharing into a Cyber Incident data Repository; and

    4. A potential repository's structure and functions.

    The findings of this effort to date are summarized in a series of three white papers.

    This announcement explains the process for submitting comments on the white papers. Comments on the white papers are valued and will enable NPPD to incorporate input from a wide audience. Each white paper is briefly detailed below, followed by questions on which NPPD seeks comments.

    (1) The Value Proposition. Details how a cyber incident data repository could help advance the cause of cyber risk management and, with the right repository data, the kinds of analysis that would be useful to CISOs, CSOs, insurers, and other cybersecurity professionals. NPPD seeks comments on the following:

    a. What value would an anonymized and trusted cyber incident data repository, as described in the white paper, have in terms of informing and improving cyber risk management practices?

    b. Do you agree with the potential benefits of an anonymized and trusted repository, as outlined in the white paper, that enterprise risk owners and insurers could use to share, store, aggregate, and analyze sensitive cyber incident data?

    c. Are there additional benefits of an anonymized and trusted repository that are not mentioned in the white paper? Please explain them briefly.

    d. What kinds of analysis from an anonymized and trusted repository would be most useful to your organization?

    (2) Cyber Incident Data Points and Repository-Supported Analysis. Addresses the kinds of prioritized data categories and associated data points that should be shared among repository users to promote new kinds of needed cyber risk analysis. NPPD seeks comments on the following:

    a. Could specific data points within the 16 data categories effectively inform analysis to bolster cyber risk management activities?

    b. Are the 16 data categories accurately defined?

    c. What additional data categories could inform useful analysis to improve cyber risk management practices?

    d. What do these additional data categories mean from a CISO or other cybersecurity professional perspective?

    e. Please rank the level of importance for each data category, including any additional data categories that you have identified.

    f. What value does each data category and associated data points bring to a better understanding of cyber incidents and their impacts?

    g. What does each data point actually mean (and to whom); and which ones are the greatest priority, to which stakeholders, and why?

    h. How easy/difficult would it be to access data associated with these categories in your organization and then share it into a repository and why?

    (3) Overcoming perceived obstacles to sharing into a Cyber Incident data Repository. Identifies perceived obstacles to voluntary cyber incident data sharing and offers potential approaches to overcoming those obstacles. NPPD seeks comments on the following:

    a. Would your organization be interested in contributing to a cyber incident data repository and using repository-supported analysis to improve your organization's risk management practices?

    b. What obstacles do you anticipate—both internal and external to your organization—that might prevent the sharing of cyber incident data into a repository?

    i. Who might say `no' to sharing and why?

    c. What mechanisms, policies, and procedures could help overcome these obstacles to sharing?

    In this call for comments on the white papers, NPPD is seeking input on any or all of the above listed questions. NPPD may use comments to further develop the content of each white paper as appropriate. Do not include ideas for specific proposals in your comments on the white papers (i.e., do not discuss your specific solution to the repository concept). This solicitation for comments on white papers is neither a Request for Proposals (RFPs) nor should it be viewed as a request for pre-proposals. Rather, it is a way to include ideas from the public to enhance the research and findings of the CIDAWG to better understand the potential of an anonymized and trusted cyber incident data repository to address the cybersecurity needs of the public and private sectors.

    Comments on white papers must not contain proprietary information. Submission of comments on any of the white papers means that the author(s) agrees that all the information in the comments on the white papers can be made available to the public. Information contained in these comments on the white papers will be considered and combined with information from other resources, including NPPD, the CIDAWG, other government agencies, cybersecurity and insurance communities, and other stakeholders to refine the focus of the white papers and are part of NPPD's collaborative outreach. Comments on the white papers are a valuable resource that adds to NPPD's understanding of the significance and scope of national cybersecurity and critical infrastructure needs. NPPD's statutory authority is the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, which is consistent with sec. 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the “Act”), 6 U.S.C. 121, and pursuant to sec. 871(a) of the Act, 6 U.S.C. 451(a).

    Dated: March 16, 2016. Matthew Shabat, Director, Performance Management, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06856 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0047] Agency Information Collection Activities: Employment Eligibility Verification, Form I-9; Revision 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 November 24, 2015, at 80 FR 73200, allowing for a 60-day public comment period. USCIS received comments from 133 commenters in connection with the 60-day notice.

    DATES:

    The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 27, 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 1615-0047.

    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-2006-0068 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: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Employment Eligibility Verification.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-9; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:

    Primary: Employers, employees, recruiters and referrers for a fee (limited to agricultural associations, agricultural employers, or farm labor contractors), and state employment agencies. This form was developed to facilitate compliance with section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens. This information collection is necessary for employers, agricultural recruiters and referrers for a fee, and state employment agencies to verify the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired (or recruited or referred for a fee, if applicable) for employment in the United States.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-9 is 55,400,000 for employers and recruiters and referrers with an estimated hour burden per response is .33 hours; 55,400,000 for individuals/households with an estimated hour burden response of .17 hour; and 20,000,000 for record keepers with an estimated hour burden response of .08 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 29,300,000 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: $0.

    Dated: March 22, 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. 2016-06883 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5909-N-22] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance” 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 27, 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:

    Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5533. 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. Guido.

    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 January 27, 2016 at 81 FR 4636.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Residential Properties and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance”.

    OMB Control Number: 2539-0009.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Provision of a pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention to tenants and purchasers, provision of a notice to occupants on the results of hazard evaluation and hazard reduction activities, special reporting requirements for a child with an environmental intervention blood lead level residing in the unit, and record keeping and periodic summary reporting requirements.

    Respondents: Residential property owners, housing agencies, Federal grantees, tribally designated housing entities or participating jurisdictions.

    The revised hour burden estimates are presented in the table below. In that table, the $15.36 hourly cost per response reflects the weighted average of cases, first, in which the respondent is simply giving someone a pamphlet, putting something in a file, or retrieving something from a file, and sending summary information from it to the Department, valued at $10.61 per hour; and second, processing notices as above as well as providing information in cases of lead-poisoned children, valued at $16.97 per hour. (These labor rates have been escalated by 3% from 2013 based on the Census Bureau's constant quality housing construction price index, since the work is in the housing trades.)

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency
  • of response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden
  • hour per
  • response
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours
  • Hourly
  • cost per
  • response
  • Annual
  • cost
  • Total 62,295 as needed Various 2.3 142,487 $15.36 $2,188,600
    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 23, 2016. Anna P. Guido, Department Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06904 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of reservation proclamation.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 0.92 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota on March 22, 2016.

    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:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

    A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or tribal membership.

    Reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Township of Prior Lake, County of Scott and State of Minnesota Former Eagle Creek Circle Property Legal Description Containing 0.92 Acres, More or Less

    Commencing at Northeast corner of said Section 34; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds West along the North line of said Section 34, a distance of 88.24 feet to its intersection with the westerly right-of-way line for a county highway known as County State Aid Highway No. 21 (Said right-of-way is described in an Order dated April 18, 2000 and filed on October 5, 2001 as Document No. A 520970 in the Office of county Recorder in and for Scott County, Minnesota); thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line along a curve, concave to the east, a radius of 22978.31 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 21 minutes 46 seconds, a distance of 145.47 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 88 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet; thence southerly along a curve, concave to the east, a radius of 23078.31 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 21 minutes 32 seconds, a distance of 144.56 feet; thence South 02 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 256.67 feet; thence South 89 degrees 49 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 100.10 feet to its intersection with said westerly right-of-way line, thence North 02 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds West along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 261.05 feet; thence northerly along a curve, concave to the east, a radius of 22978.31 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 21 minutes 32 seconds, a distance of 143.93 feet along said westerly line to the point of beginning.

    This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads or pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06965 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of reservation proclamation.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 2.79 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota on March 22, 2016.

    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:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

    A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or tribal membership.

    Reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Township of Shakopee, County of Scott and State of Minnesota Stemmer Legal Description Containing 2.79 Acres, More or Less

    The North 363.00 feet of the East 300.00 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 115 North, Range 22 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian according to the United States Government Survey thereof.

    This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads or pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06976 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 80.00 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota on March 22, 2016.

    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:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

    A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be an addition to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or Tribal membership.

    Reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Township of Prior Lake, County of Scott and State of Minnesota Dolan Parcel Legal Description Containing 80.00 Acres, More or Less

    The South Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 115 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Scott County, Minnesota.

    This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads or pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06974 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 80.00 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota on March 22, 2016.

    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, telephone: (202) 208-3615.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

    A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be an addition to the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or Tribal membership.

    Reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Township of Shakopee, County of Scott and State of Minnesota Former McKenna Property Legal Description Containing 80.00 Acres More or Less

    West Half of the Northeast Quarter, Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West, 5th Principal Meridian, Scott County, Minnesota.

    This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads or pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06963 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Proclaiming Certain Lands as Reservation for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of reservation proclamation.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice informs the public that the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs proclaimed approximately 77.00 acres, more or less, an addition to the reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota on March 22, 2016.

    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:

    This notice is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by part 209 of the Departmental Manual.

    A proclamation was issued according to the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 467), for the land described below. The land was proclaimed to be Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation for the exclusive use of Indians on that reservation who are entitled to reside at the reservation by enrollment or tribal membership.

    Reservation of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Township of Shakopee, County of Scott and State of Minnesota MWCC (Parcel 2) Petsch Legal Description Containing 77.00 Acres, More or Less

    The East Half of the Northeast Quarter (E 1/2 of NE 1/4) of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Scott County, Minnesota. TPN: 279220020.

    This proclamation does not affect title to the land described above, nor does it affect any valid existing easements for public roads and highways, for public utilities and for railroads or pipelines and any other rights-of-way or reservations of record.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06964 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-NRSS-GRD-20166; PPWONRADG0, PPMRSNR1Y.NG0000 (166)] Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; Mining and Mining Claims and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (National Park Service, NPS) have sent an Information Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for review and approval. We summarize the ICR below and describe the nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost. This information collection is scheduled to expire on March 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. However, under OMB regulations, we may continue to conduct or sponsor this information collection while it is pending at OMB.

    DATES:

    You must submit comments on or before April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive (Mail Stop 242, Room 2C114), Reston, VA 20192 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please reference OMB Control Number 1024-0064 in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this ICR, contact Edward O. Kassman, Jr., Regulatory Specialist, Energy and Minerals Branch, Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, Lakewood, Colorado 80225 (mail); (303) 987-6792 (fax); or [email protected] (email). You may review the ICR online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    I. Abstract

    The Organic Act of 1916 (NPS Organic Act) (54 U.S.C. 100101) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to develop regulations for national park units under the Department's jurisdiction. The Mining in the Parks Act (54 U.S.C. 100731 et seq.) directs the Secretary of the Interior to regulate all operations in park units in connection with the exercise of mineral rights on patented and unpatented mining claims.

    The regulations at 36 CFR part 9, subparts A and B, ensure that mining and non-Federal oil and gas activities on units of the National Park System are conducted in a manner consistent with preserving each unit for the benefit of present and future generations. The information required by Subpart A identifies the claim, claimant, and operator (the claimant and operator are often the same) and details how the operator intends to access and develop the minerals associated with the claim. It also identifies the steps the operator intends to take to minimize any adverse impacts of the mining operations on park resource and values. No information, except claim ownership information, is submitted unless the claimant wishes to conduct mining operations. The information required by Subpart B identifies the owner and operator (the owner and operator are often the same) and details how the operator intends to access and develop the oil and gas rights. It also identifies the steps the operator intends to take to minimize any adverse impacts on park resources and values. No information is submitted unless the owner wishes to conduct oil and gas operations.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1024-0064.

    Title: Mining and Mining Claims and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights, 36 CFR part 9, subparts A and B.

    Service Form Number: None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Businesses.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • Total annual burden hours
    Mining and Mining Claims 1 1 176 176 Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights 20 20 176 3,520 Totals 21 21 3,696

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    III. Request for Comments

    On December 16, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 78250) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for this information collection. In that notice, we solicited public comments for 60 days, ending on February 16, 2016. We did not receive any comments.

    We again 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.

    Please note that the comments submitted in response to this notice are a matter of public record. 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 OMB or us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Madonna L. Baucum, Information Collection Clearance Officer, National Park Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06918 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-DTS #20494; 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 [insert date for this batch], for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by April 12, 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 [insert date for this batch]. 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 Alameda County Alameda County Building and Loan Association Building, 1601—1605 Clay St., Oakland, 16000152 Yolo County TB—9, SW corner of Old Davis Rd. and Hutchinson Dr., University of California, Davis, Davis, 16000153 COLORADO Larimer County Warren Livestock Company, Graves Camp Rural Historic District, Five miles west of I-25 just south of the Colorado-Wyoming state line, in far northeastern Larimer County, Wellington, 16000155 Park County Guiraud—McDowell Ranch, Highway 9, Garo, 16000154 MASSACHUSETTS Bristol County Lowney Chocolate Factory, 150 Oakland St., Mansfield, 16000156 Worcester County First Baptist Church of Northborough, 52 Main St., Northborough, 16000157 MINNESOTA Todd County Bridge No. L7075, 290th St. over Turtle Creek, 0.1 mi. east of CSAH 25 in Hartford Township, Browerville, 16000158 NEBRASKA Douglas County North 24th and Lake Streets Historic District, North 24th St. between Ohio St. and Patrick Ave., Lake St. between 26th and 22th Sts., Omaha, 16000159 NEW MEXICO Bernalillo County Vista Larga Residential Historic District, Roughly bounded by Indian School Rd., Columbia Dr., Hannett Ave., and University of New Mexico North Golf Course, Albuquerque, 16000160 Dona Ana County Mesilla Park Historic District, Bounded by Bowman St., Union and University Aves., and Park Drain, Las Cruces, 16000161 Socorro County San Miguel Church, (El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro MPS (AD)) 403 El Camino Real St., NW., Socorro, 16000162 NEW YORK Monroe County Pittsford Village Historic District (Boundary Increase), High, Church, Grove, Line, Locust, Maple, N. & S. Main, State, Sutherland, Wood Sts., Boughton, E. Jefferson, Golf, Rand Rds., Pittsford, 16000163 Warren County Caldwell Presbyterian Church, 71 Montcalm St., Lake George, 16000164 TENNESSEE Anderson County Norris Hydroelectric Project, 300 Powerhouse Way, Norris, 16000165 VIRGINIA Charles City County Dancing Point, Address Restricted, Charles City, 16000166

    A request to move has been received for the following resource:

    KENTUCKY, Fayette County Peoples Federal Savings and Loan, 343 S. Broadway, Lexington, 15000650 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60

    Dated: March 3, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06931 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-16-010] Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    March 31, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-531-533 and 731-TA-1270-1273 (Final)(Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from Canada, China, India, and Oman). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on April 12, 2016.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    Dated: Issued: March 23, 2016.

    By order of the Commission.

    William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07075 Filed 3-24-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Summary of Commission Practice Relating to Administrative Protective Orders AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Summary of Commission practice relating to administrative protective orders.

    SUMMARY:

    Since February 1991, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has issued an annual report on the status of its practice with respect to violations of its administrative protective orders (“APOs”) under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, in response to a direction contained in the Conference Report to the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. Over time, the Commission has added to its report discussions of APO breaches in Commission proceedings other than under title VII and violations of the Commission's rules including the rule on bracketing business proprietary information (“BPI”) (the “24-hour rule”), 19 CFR 207.3(c). This notice provides a summary of breach investigations completed during calendar year 2014. This summary addresses one proceeding under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 and four proceedings under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. There were no rules violation investigations completed in 2014. The Commission intends that this report inform representatives of parties to Commission proceedings as to some specific types of APO breaches encountered by the Commission and the corresponding types of actions the Commission has taken.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-3088. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing its Web site (http://www.usitc.gov).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Representatives of parties to investigations or other proceedings conducted under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Article 1904.13, and safeguard-related provisions such as sections 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, may enter into APOs that permit them, under strict conditions, to obtain access to BPI (title VII) and confidential business information (“CBI”) (safeguard-related provisions and section 337) of other parties or non-parties. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1677f; 19 CFR 207.7; 19 U.S.C. 1337(n); 19 CFR 210.5, 210.34; 19 U.S.C. 2252(i); 19 CFR 206.17; 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(7)(A); and 19 CFR 207.100, et. seq. The discussion below describes APO breach investigations that the Commission has completed during calendar year 2014, including a description of actions taken in response to these breaches.

    Since 1991, the Commission has published annually a summary of its actions in response to violations of Commission APOs and the 24-hour rule. See 56 FR 4846 (February 6, 1991); 57 FR 12335 (April 9, 1992); 58 FR 21991 (April 26, 1993); 59 FR 16834 (April 8, 1994); 60 FR 24880 (May 10, 1995); 61 FR 21203 (May 9, 1996); 62 FR 13164 (March 19, 1997); 63 FR 25064 (May 6, 1998); 64 FR 23355 (April 30, 1999); 65 FR 30434 (May 11, 2000); 66 FR 27685 (May 18, 2001); 67 FR 39425 (June 7, 2002); 68 FR 28256 (May 23, 2003); 69 FR 29972 (May 26, 2004); 70 FR 42382 (July 25, 2005); 71 FR 39355 (July 12, 2006); 72 FR 50119 (August 30, 2007); 73 FR 51843 (September 5, 2008); 74 FR 54071 (October 21, 2009); 75 FR 54071 (October 27, 2010), 76 FR 78945 (December 20, 2011), 77 FR 76518 (December 28, 2012), 78 FR 79481 (December 30, 2013) and 80 FR 1664 (January 13, 2015). This report does not provide an exhaustive list of conduct that will be deemed to be a breach of the Commission's APOs. APO breach inquiries are considered on a case-by-case basis.

    As part of the effort to educate practitioners about the Commission's current APO practice, the Commission Secretary issued in March 2005 a fourth edition of An Introduction to Administrative Protective Order Practice in Import Injury Investigations (Pub. No. 3755). This document is available upon request from the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, tel. (202) 205-2000 and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.usitc.gov.

    I. In General A. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations

    The current APO form for antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, which was revised in March 2005, requires the applicant to swear that he or she will:

    (1) Not divulge any of the BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation and not otherwise available to him or her, to any person other than—

    (i) Personnel of the Commission concerned with the investigation,

    (ii) The person or agency from whom the BPI was obtained,

    (iii) A person whose application for disclosure of BPI under this APO has been granted by the Secretary, and

    (iv) Other persons, such as paralegals and clerical staff, who (a) are employed or supervised by and under the direction and control of the authorized applicant or another authorized applicant in the same firm whose application has been granted; (b) have a need thereof in connection with the investigation; (c) are not involved in competitive decision making for an interested party which is a party to the investigation; and (d) have signed the acknowledgment for clerical personnel in the form attached hereto (the authorized applicant shall also sign such acknowledgment and will be deemed responsible for such persons' compliance with this APO);

    (2) Use such BPI solely for the purposes of the above-captioned Commission investigation or for judicial or binational panel review of such Commission investigation;

    (3) Not consult with any person not described in paragraph (1) concerning BPI disclosed under this APO or otherwise obtained in this investigation without first having received the written consent of the Secretary and the party or the representative of the party from whom such BPI was obtained;

    (4) Whenever materials e.g., documents, computer disks, etc. containing such BPI are not being used, store such material in a locked file cabinet, vault, safe, or other suitable container (N.B.: storage of BPI on so-called hard disk computer media is to be avoided, because mere erasure of data from such media may not irrecoverably destroy the BPI and may result in violation of paragraph C of this APO);

    (5) Serve all materials containing BPI disclosed under this APO as directed by the Secretary and pursuant to section 207.7(f) of the Commission's rules;

    (6) Transmit each document containing BPI disclosed under this APO:

    (i) with a cover sheet identifying the document as containing BPI,

    (ii) with all BPI enclosed in brackets and each page warning that the document contains BPI,

    (iii) if the document is to be filed by a deadline, with each page marked “Bracketing of BPI not final for one business day after date of filing,” and

    (iv) if by mail, within two envelopes, the inner one sealed and marked “Business Proprietary Information—To be opened only by [name of recipient]”, and the outer one sealed and not marked as containing BPI;

    (7) Comply with the provision of this APO and section 207.7 of the Commission's rules;

    (8) Make true and accurate representations in the authorized applicant's application and promptly notify the Secretary of any changes that occur after the submission of the application and that affect the representations made in the application (e.g., change in personnel assigned to the investigation);

    (9) Report promptly and confirm in writing to the Secretary any possible breach of this APO; and

    (10) Acknowledge that breach of this APO may subject the authorized applicant and other persons to such sanctions or other actions as the Commission deems appropriate, including the administrative sanctions and actions set out in this APO.

    The APO further provides that breach of an APO may subject an applicant to:

    (1) Disbarment from practice in any capacity before the Commission along with such person's partners, associates, employer, and employees, for up to seven years following publication of a determination that the order has been breached;

    (2) Referral to the United States Attorney;

    (3) In the case of an attorney, accountant, or other professional, referral to the ethics panel of the appropriate professional association;

    (4) Such other administrative sanctions as the Commission determines to be appropriate, including public release of, or striking from the record any information or briefs submitted by, or on behalf of, such person or the party he represents; denial of further access to business proprietary information in the current or any future investigations before the Commission, and issuance of a public or private letter of reprimand; and

    (5) Such other actions, including but not limited to, a warning letter, as the Commission determines to be appropriate.

    APOs in safeguard investigations contain similar though not identical provisions.

    B. Section 337 Investigations

    The APOs in section 337 investigations differ from those in title VII investigations as there is no set form and provisions may differ depending on the investigation and the presiding administrative law judge. However, in practice, the provisions are often quite similar. Any person seeking access to CBI during a section 337 investigation including outside counsel for parties to the investigation, secretarial and support personnel assisting such counsel, and technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation is required to read the APO, agree to its terms by letter filed with the Secretary of the Commission indicating that he agrees to be bound by the terms of the Order, agree not to reveal CBI to anyone other than another person permitted access by the Order, and agree to utilize the CBI solely for the purposes of that investigation.

    In general, an APO in a section 337 investigation will define what kind of information is CBI and direct how CBI is to be designated and protected. The APO will state what persons will have access to the CBI and which of those persons must sign onto the APO. The APO will provide instructions on how CBI is to be maintained and protected by labeling documents and filing transcripts under seal. It will provide protections for the suppliers of CBI by notifying them of a Freedom of Information Act request for the CBI and providing a procedure for the supplier to take action to prevent the release of the information. There are provisions for disputing the designation of CBI and a procedure for resolving such disputes. Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are given the opportunity to object to the release of the CBI to a proposed expert. The APO requires a person who discloses CBI, other than in a manner authorized by the APO, to provide all pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI and to the administrative law judge and to make every effort to prevent further disclosure. The APO requires all parties to the APO to either return to the suppliers or destroy the originals and all copies of the CBI obtained during the investigation.

    The Commission's regulations provide for certain sanctions to be imposed if the APO is violated by a person subject to its restrictions. The names of the persons being investigated for violating an APO are kept confidential unless the sanction imposed is a public letter of reprimand. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(1). The possible sanctions are:

    (1) An official reprimand by the Commission.

    (2) Disqualification from or limitation of further participation in a pending investigation.

    (3) Temporary or permanent disqualification from practicing in any capacity before the Commission pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a).

    (4) Referral of the facts underlying the violation to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which the individual is licensed to practice.

    (5) Making adverse inferences and rulings against a party involved in the violation of the APO or such other action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 210.34(c)(3).

    Commission employees are not signatories to the Commission's APOs and do not obtain access to BPI through APO procedures. Consequently, they are not subject to the requirements of the APO with respect to the handling of CBI and BPI. However, Commission employees are subject to strict statutory and regulatory constraints concerning BPI and CBI, and face potentially severe penalties for noncompliance. See 18 U.S.C. 1905; title 5, U.S. Code; and Commission personnel policies implementing the statutes. Although the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) limits the Commission's authority to disclose any personnel action against agency employees, this should not lead the public to conclude that no such actions have been taken.

    II. Investigations of Alleged APO Breaches

    Upon finding evidence of an APO breach or receiving information that there is a reason to believe one has occurred, the Commission Secretary notifies relevant offices in the agency that an APO breach investigation has commenced and that an APO breach investigation file has been opened. Upon receiving notification from the Secretary, the Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) prepares a letter of inquiry to be sent to the possible breacher over the Secretary's signature to ascertain the facts and obtain the possible breacher's views on whether a breach has occurred.1 If, after reviewing the response and other relevant information, the Commission determines that a breach has occurred, the Commission often issues a second letter asking the breacher to address the questions of mitigating circumstances and possible sanctions or other actions. The Commission then determines what action to take in response to the breach. In some cases, the Commission determines that, although a breach has occurred, sanctions are not warranted, and therefore finds it unnecessary to issue a second letter concerning what sanctions might be appropriate. Instead, it issues a warning letter to the individual. A warning letter is not considered to be a sanction. However, a warning letter is considered in a subsequent APO breach investigation.

    1 Procedures for inquiries to determine whether a prohibited act such as a breach has occurred and for imposing sanctions for violation of the provisions of a protective order issued during NAFTA panel or committee proceedings are set out in 19 CFR 207.100-207.120. Those investigations are initially conducted by the Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations.

    Sanctions for APO violations serve three basic interests: (a) Preserving the confidence of submitters of BPI/CBI that the Commission is a reliable protector of BPI/CBI; (b) disciplining breachers; and (c) deterring future violations. As the Conference Report to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 observed, “[T]he effective enforcement of limited disclosure under administrative protective order depends in part on the extent to which private parties have confidence that there are effective sanctions against violation.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 623 (1988).

    The Commission has worked to develop consistent jurisprudence, not only in determining whether a breach has occurred, but also in selecting an appropriate response. In determining the appropriate response, the Commission generally considers mitigating factors such as the unintentional nature of the breach, the lack of prior breaches committed by the breaching party, the corrective measures taken by the breaching party, and the promptness with which the breaching party reported the violation to the Commission. The Commission also considers aggravating circumstances, especially whether persons not under the APO actually read the BPI/CBI. The Commission considers whether there have been prior breaches by the same person or persons in other investigations and multiple breaches by the same person or persons in the same investigation.

    The Commission's rules permit an economist or consultant to obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII or safeguard investigation if the economist or consultant is under the direction and control of an attorney under the APO, or if the economist or consultant appears regularly before the Commission and represents an interested party who is a party to the investigation. 19 CFR 207.7(a)(3)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(B) and (C). Economists and consultants who obtain access to BPI/CBI under the APO under the direction and control of an attorney nonetheless remain individually responsible for complying with the APO. In appropriate circumstances, for example, an economist under the direction and control of an attorney may be held responsible for a breach of the APO by failing to redact APO information from a document that is subsequently filed with the Commission and served as a public document. This is so even though the attorney exercising direction or control over the economist or consultant may also be held responsible for the breach of the APO. In section 337 investigations, technical experts and their staff who are employed for the purposes of the investigation are required to sign onto the APO and agree to comply with its provisions.

    The records of Commission investigations of alleged APO breaches in antidumping and countervailing duty cases, section 337 investigations, and safeguard investigations are not publicly available and are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. See 19 U.S.C. 1677f(g), 19 U.S.C. 1333(h), 19 CFR 210.34(c).

    The two types of breaches most frequently investigated by the Commission involve the APO's prohibition on the dissemination of BPI or CBI to unauthorized persons and the APO's requirement that the materials received under the APO be returned or destroyed and that a certificate be filed indicating which action was taken after the termination of the investigation or any subsequent appeals of the Commission's determination. The dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI from public versions of documents filed with the Commission or transmission of proprietary versions of documents to unauthorized recipients. Other breaches have included the failure to bracket properly BPI/CBI in proprietary documents filed with the Commission, the failure to report immediately known violations of an APO, and the failure to adequately supervise non-lawyers in the handling of BPI/CBI.

    Occasionally, the Commission conducts APOB investigations that involve members of a law firm or consultants working with a firm who were granted access to APO materials by the firm although they were not APO signatories. In many of these cases, the firm and the person using the BPI/CBI mistakenly believed an APO application had been filed for that person. The Commission determined in all of these cases that the person who was a non-signatory, and therefore did not agree to be bound by the APO, could not be found to have breached the APO. Action could be taken against these persons, however, under Commission rule 201.15 (19 CFR 201.15) for good cause shown. In all cases in which action was taken, the Commission decided that the non-signatory was a person who appeared regularly before the Commission and was aware of the requirements and limitations related to APO access and should have verified his or her APO status before obtaining access to and using the BPI/CBI. The Commission notes that section 201.15 may also be available to issue sanctions to attorneys or agents in different factual circumstances in which they did not technically breach the APO, but when their actions or inactions did not demonstrate diligent care of the APO materials even though they appeared regularly before the Commission and were aware of the importance the Commission placed on the care of APO materials.

    Counsel participating in Commission investigations have reported to the Commission potential breaches involving the electronic transmission of public versions of documents. In these cases, the document transmitted appears to be a public document with BPI or CBI omitted from brackets. However, the confidential information is actually retrievable by manipulating codes in software. The Commission has found that the electronic transmission of a public document containing BPI or CBI in a recoverable form was a breach of the APO.

    Counsel have been cautioned to be certain that each authorized applicant files within 60 days of the completion of an import injury investigation or at the conclusion of judicial or binational review of the Commission's determination a certificate that to his or her knowledge and belief all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned or destroyed and no copies of such material have been made available to any person to whom disclosure was not specifically authorized. This requirement applies to each attorney, consultant, or expert in a firm who has been granted access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide certificate is insufficient.

    Attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should inform the administrative law judge and the Commission's secretary if there are any changes to the information that was provided in the application for access to the CBI. This is similar to the requirement to update an applicant's information in title VII investigations.

    In addition, attorneys who are signatories to the APO representing clients in a section 337 investigation should send a notice to the Commission if they stop participating in the investigation or the subsequent appeal of the Commission's determination. The notice should inform the Commission about the disposition of CBI obtained under the APO that was in their possession or they could be held responsible for any failure of their former firm to return or destroy the CBI in an appropriate manner.

    III. Specific APO Breach Investigations

    Case 1. A law firm filed a public response to a petition for review of a final determination in a section 337 investigation. Although CBI was visibly redacted in the response, the CBI could be accessed by electronically manipulating the document. A paralegal in the firm maintained two versions of the document, one with the recoverable CBI and one without. When he filed the response with the Commission he mistakenly filed the version that contained the redacted CBI. The Commission found that the paralegal and an attorney who was responsible for reviewing the document before it was filed violated the APO. The Commission decided not to sanction them and issued warning letters.

    Although the filing of the improperly redacted document made CBI available to unauthorized persons, the Commission decided to issue warning letters because of several mitigating circumstances. There was no proof that an unauthorized person had viewed the CBI. Initially, the Commission's staff notified the law firm's lead attorney that another law firm and a research firm had accessed the document through EDIS. The lead attorney immediately contacted these firms, asked that they destroy the document, and learned that no unauthorized person had read the document. Almost a year later the Commission's staff notified the lead attorney that another research firm had accessed the document at the time the breach occurred. The lead attorney immediately contacted the second research firm. He learned that the firm had gone out of business and had destroyed any information that could show whether or not an unauthorized person had read the document. Although the Commission has a practice of assuming that an unauthorized person had read CBI if a document containing CBI is made available for a significant period of time, in this case there was no evidence that an unauthorized person had read the document and the law firm was unable to confirm this because of the lag in the notification about the second research firm. Thus, the Commission did not find this to be an aggravating circumstance.

    The Commission also noted that neither the attorney nor the paralegal had ever been found in violation of an APO. In addition, they quickly discovered the error and acted promptly to remedy the unintentional disclosure, contacted superiors in their firm who then notified the Commission of the breach, took the necessary steps to have the document removed from public EDIS, and insured that the document was not viewed by unauthorized persons. The Commission also noted that the attorney and the paralegal generally followed the procedures established by their firm for creating redacted versions of documents containing CBI. The Commission noted that the firm has established revised procedures that are meant to verify that public documents have been properly redacted before filing.

    Case 2. The Commission determined that three attorneys breached an APO when their firm retained a file copy of documents containing CBI beyond the termination of a Commission section 337 investigation. As required under the APO, upon termination of the investigation, the firm certified that CBI belonging to respondents had been destroyed or returned. However, files containing CBI were inadvertently sent to an off-site storage facility.

    The Commission became aware of the breach when it received a letter from an attorney with the firm who had discovered the files when he responded to a district court discovery order compelling the firm's client to produce discovery related to ITC proceedings. The attorney was unable to explain why the files were retained and not destroyed since nearly all of the attorneys and support staff who worked on the investigation had left the firm. The lawyer was able to determine that no one accessed the CBI files while they were in off-site storage.

    Warning letters were issued to the three remaining attorneys at the firm who had been subject to the APO in the section 337 investigation. The Commission considered the mitigating circumstances that the breach was unintentional, the CBI was not read by any person not subject to the APO, that the firm discovered and reported the breach, and that this is the only breach in which the attorneys were involved in the two-year period generally examined by the Commission for the purpose of determining sanctions. The attorneys were also instructed to destroy the CBI and certify that destruction had been completed.

    Case 3. The Commission determined that a law firm breached an APO in a section 337 investigation when it retained three boxes of documents containing CBI that should have been returned or destroyed upon termination of an investigation. The firm also violated the APO by keeping an electronic copy of its work product files which contained CBI. For two years the three boxes along with other boxes of the case files from the investigation had been transferred to another firm (the second firm) which was representing the same client in other proceedings. The attorneys in that firm were not signatories to the APO. The boxes were returned to the original law firm because attorneys at the second firm became aware that there may be documents in the case file that should have been returned or destroyed at the end of the investigation. Attorneys at the second firm informed the first firm that no one had reviewed the documents within the boxes. The first firm did not immediately review the contents of the case file upon its return.

    A year later the firm investigated the case file after it received a subpoena in a new Commission investigation seeking to compel production of portions of the same case file. In response to a request from the ALJ, the firm investigated the case file. It found three boxes with third party production documents containing CBI that should have been destroyed.

    Also in response to the subpoena, the firm disclosed that it possessed a computer file created as part of its litigation efforts which contained opposing party documents containing CBI and which was work product material. Although this computer file was not subject to discovery, it should have been destroyed pursuant to the APO. A copy made by the second firm was removed from the server and returned to the first firm. Again, the second firm indicated that no one had read the information from the file.

    The Commission determined to send a warning letter to the one attorney who had been involved in the original Commission investigation and who was receiving the letter on behalf of the law firm. The Commission considered the mitigating factors that the breach was unintentional, the attorney and other attorneys at the firm had not breached an APO within the last two years, and a partner in the firm alerted the Commission as soon as the potential breach involving the three boxes was discovered. The Commission noted the firm's delay in ascertaining what confidential materials improperly remained at the firm, but also noted that the firm was able to demonstrate that no unauthorized person had accessed the CBI at issue.

    Although the three boxes of files had been destroyed shortly after the investigation into the APO breach had begun, the letter directed the attorney to retrieve and destroy the work product computer file. The attorney was further directed to send an affidavit certifying the destruction within 60 days of the receipt of the warning letter.

    Case 4. A lead attorney and an associate were employed by a law firm representing a party in a title VII investigation. The lead attorney was the signatory to the APO. During the investigation he filed a motion to amend the APO and add the associate to it. The application was filed late under the Commission's rules and was subsequently rejected by the Commission Secretary. In the meantime, the lead attorney had directed the associate to review the confidential version of the post hearing brief which contained BPI from the confidential staff report and other parties to the investigation.

    The Commission found that the lead attorney had violated the APO. It determined that the associate did not breach the APO nor was there good cause to sanction him under Commission rule 201.15. The Commission determined to issue a warning letter to the lead attorney and a letter to the associate indicating that he would not be sanctioned under rule 201.15.

    For the associate, the Commission considered the facts that he was not subject to the APO, that he reasonably did not know that he was not permitted to view BPI, and that he acted entirely under the direction of the lead attorney. The letter to the associate did caution him to ensure independently in future investigations that he is properly subject to the APO before accessing BPI obtained under that APO.

    The Commission determined not to sanction the lead attorney. In reaching this decision the Commission considered several mitigating circumstances. The lead attorney had no prior breaches within the two-year period generally examined by the Commission for purposes of determining sanctions; the breach was unintentional; and the person who viewed the BPI acted as if bound by the APO. The Commission also considered the aggravating circumstance that the law firm failed to notice the breach until agency staff contacted the lead attorney almost two months after the breach occurred.

    Case 5. A law firm filed a public version of its complaint containing CBI in a section 337 investigation. The Commission found that the law firm did not violate the APO since the CBI that was disclosed and made publicly accessible was not obtained under an APO related to a Commission investigation. In addition, the disclosure of the CBI occurred before an APO was issued in the Commission investigation. The letter to the firm advised it to practice better procedures in the future to ensure that no CBI is disclosed.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 22, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06875 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES Meeting of the Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY:

    Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries gives notice of a closed meeting of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 18, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Mercer, 4440 Comerica Bank Tower, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director of the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries, 703-414-2173.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that the Advisory Committee on Actuarial Examinations will meet at Mercer, 4400 Comerica Bank Tower, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, TX 75201, on April 18, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss topics and questions that may be recommended for inclusion on future Joint Board examinations in actuarial mathematics, pension law and methodology referred to in 29 U.S.C. 1242(a)(1)(B).

    A determination has been made as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the subject of the meeting falls within the exception to the open meeting requirement set forth in title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), and that the public interest requires that such meeting be closed to public participation.

    Dated: March 15, 2016. Patrick W. McDonough, Executive Director, Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06941 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1110-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Previously Approved Collection: ViCAP Case Submission Form AGENCY:

    Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 3159, on January 20, 2016, allowing for a 60-day comment period.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 27, 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 Lesa Marcolini, Program Manager, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Critical Incident Response Group, ViCAP, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 22135; facsimile (703) 632-4239. 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.

    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 Bureau of Justice Statistics, 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: ViCAP Case Submission Form.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The form number is FD-676. The applicable component within the Department of Justice is the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Federal, state, local, and tribal government law enforcement agencies charged with the responsibility of investigating violent crimes. Abstract: Established by the Department of Justice in 1985, ViCAP serves as the national repository for violent crimes; specifically; Homicides (and attempts) that are known or suspected to be part of a series and/or are apparently random, motiveless, or sexually oriented. Sexual assaults that are known or suspected to be part of a series and/or are committed by a stranger. Missing persons where the circumstances indicate a strong possibility of foul play and the victim is still missing. Unidentified human remains where the manner of death is known or suspected to be homicide.

    Comprehensive case information submitted to ViCAP is maintained in the ViCAP Web National Crime Database and is automatically compared to all other cases in the databases to identify potentially related cases.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Of the approximately 18,000 government law enforcement agencies that are eligible to submit cases, it is estimated that thirty to fifty percent will actually submit cases to ViCAP. The time burden of the respondents is less than 60 minutes per form.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 5,000 annual burden 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., 3E.405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06900 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office [Docket Nos. 2015-6, 2015-8] Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study and Section 1201 Study: Announcement of Public Roundtables AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public roundtables.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Copyright Office has issued Notices of Inquiry (“NOIs”) announcing separate public studies on software-enabled consumer products and section 1201 of title 17. In addition to soliciting written comments on these issues, the Office is now announcing public roundtables for these studies to provide forums for interested members of the public to address the issues set forth in the NOIs.

    DATES AND ADDRESSES: Public roundtables for the above-referenced Copyright Office studies will be held on the dates and at the locations provided below. The roundtables for the two studies are being held on consecutive dates in each location to accommodate parties who may have an interest in attending both.

    Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: For its study on software-enabled consumer products, the Office will hold public roundtables in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA. The roundtable in Washington will take place on May 18, 2016, at the Library of Congress's Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20540, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. The roundtable in San Francisco will take place on May 24, 2016, at Hastings School of Law, 200 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m.

    Section 1201 Study: Likewise, for its study on section 1201, the Office will hold public roundtables in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA. The roundtable in Washington will take place on May 19 and May 20, 2016, at the Library of Congress's Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20540, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. on the first day, and from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m. on the second day. The roundtable in San Francisco will take place on May 25 and May 26, 2016, at Hastings School of Law, 200 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. on the first day, and from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m. on the second day.

    Additional information, including instructions for submitting requests to participate in the roundtables, is available on the Copyright Office Web site at http://copyright.gov/policy/software/ (software-enabled consumer products) and http://copyright.gov/policy/1201/ (section 1201). Requests to participate in the roundtables must be received by the Copyright Office by April 18, 2016. If you are unable to access a computer or the internet, please contact the Office using the contact information below for special instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study: Sarang V. Damle, Deputy General Counsel, [email protected]; Catherine Rowland, Senior Advisor to the Register of Copyrights, [email protected]; or Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration Policy and Practice, [email protected]

    Section 1201 Study: Regan A. Smith, Associate General Counsel, [email protected]; or Kevin Amer, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, [email protected]

    Each of these persons can be reached by telephone at (202) 707-8350.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Copyright Office is conducting separate studies concerning software-enabled consumer products and section 1201 of title 17.

    Software-Enabled Consumer Products Study

    On December 15, 2015, the Copyright Office issued an NOI announcing a study on the role of copyright law with respect to the design, distribution, and use of consumer products that include embedded software. 80 FR 77668. This study is being done at the request of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Consistent with the Committee's request, the focus of the study is on software contained in consumer products; it is not intended to address more general questions about software and copyright.

    Section 1201 Study

    Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), section 1201 prohibits the circumvention of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners to control access to their works (also known as “access controls”), as well as the trafficking in technologies or services that facilitate such circumvention. In addition, section 1201 codifies a triennial rulemaking process through which the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, can grant exemptions to the prohibition on the circumvention of access controls. The Copyright Office issued an NOI soliciting comments on the operation and effectiveness of section 1201 on December 29, 2015. 80 FR 81369.

    Roundtable Subjects of Inquiry

    At this time, the Copyright Office is providing notice of its intention to seek further input for these studies through public roundtables to be held on the dates and at the addresses set forth above. The public roundtables will offer an opportunity for interested parties to comment on topics set forth in the NOIs.

    For the software-enabled consumer products study, the roundtables at each location will consist of sessions on the following topics: (1) The proper role of copyright in protecting software-enabled consumer products; (2) ownership and contractual issues; (3) fair use; and (4) the first sale doctrine, section 117, and other limitations and exceptions. After the final session, the Office will also provide participants and observers with an opportunity to offer additional comments for the record.

    For the section 1201 study, roundtables at each location will consist of sessions on the following topics: (1) The relationship of section 1201 to copyright infringement, consumer issues, and competition; (2) the rulemaking process—evidentiary and procedural issues; (3) the rulemaking process—renewal of previously granted exemptions; (4) the anti-trafficking prohibitions and third-party assistance for permitted circumvention of technological measures; and (5) permanent exemptions to the prohibition on circumvention. After the final session, the Office will also provide participants and observers with an opportunity to offer additional comments for the record.

    Each of the roundtable hearing rooms will have a limited number of seats for participants and observers. Public seating for observers will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis on the days of the roundtables.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06925 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board [Docket No. 2008-2 CRB CD 2000-2003 (Phase II)] Distribution of the 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 Cable Royalty Funds AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final distribution order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges announce the final Phase II distribution of cable royalty funds for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 for the Program Suppliers programming category.

    DATES:

    Effective March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final distribution order also is posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.loc.gov/crb.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor. Telephone: (202) 707-7658; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The captioned consolidated royalty distribution proceeding concluded on August 14, 2015, when the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a mandate relating to their June 30, 2015, order affirming the distribution shares for claimants in the Program Suppliers category as determined by the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges). After the mandate, the Judges received filings from Worldwide Subsidy Group dba Independent Producers Group (IPG) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) contesting the appropriate methodology for distribution of the remaining royalty funds on deposit.

    By order dated November 25, 2015, the Judges directed MPAA to provide historical context from which the Judges and the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office could distribute accurately the funds, taking into account prior partial distributions, fund growth through accrued interest, and deductions for Licensing Division costs. MPAA provided the necessary information on December 7, 2015. The Licensing Division staff provided accounting services to assure accurate distribution in accordance with the Judges' orders.

    The Licensing Division calculated that, as of February 17, 2016, the total distribution to IPG for each royalty year should be:

    2000 $617,719 2001 164,203 2002 197,725 2003 125,884 Total 1,105,531

    Now, therefore, the Judges hereby order that the Licensing Division make final distribution to IPG from the Program Suppliers category for the years 2000 through 2003, inclusive, in the amounts listed, adjusted if necessary to reflect interest accrued or costs incurred from and after February 17, 2016, to the date of distribution.

    The Judges further order that the Licensing Division distribute simultaneously the remaining funds in the Program Suppliers category for royalty years 2000 through 2003, inclusive, to MPAA, adjusted if necessary to reflect interest accrued or costs incurred from and after February 17, 2016.

    The Judges further order that IPG and MPAA provide to the Licensing Division all necessary and pertinent information to facilitate the transfer by March 31, 2016.

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06923 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0001] Sunshine Act Meeting Notice DATE:

    March 28, April 4, 11, 18, 25, May 2, 2016.

    PLACE:

    Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

    STATUS:

    Public and Closed.

    Week of March 28, 2016 Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Project Aim (Public Meeting); (Contact: Janelle Jessie: 301-415-6775).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Security Issues (Closed Ex. 1). Week of April 4, 2016—Tentative Tuesday, April 5, 2016 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed Ex. 1). Week of April 11, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 11, 2016.

    Week of April 18, 2016—Tentative Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:30 a.m. Meeting with the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (Public Meeting); (Contact: Paul Michalak: 301-415-5804).

    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov/.

    Week of April 25, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 25, 2016.

    Week of May 2, 2016—Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 2, 2016.

    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at [email protected]

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability Program Manager, at 301-287-0739, by videophone at 240-428-3217, or by email at Kimberly.Me[email protected]nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email [email protected] or [email protected]

    Dated: March 23, 2016. Glenn Ellmers, Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07042 Filed 3-24-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Project No. 753; NRC-2016-0063] TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Technical specifications task force; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Technical Specifications (TS) Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS Inservice Testing [(IST)] Program Removal & Clarify [Surveillance Requirement] SR Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,” for plant-specific adoption using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process (CLIIP).

    DATES:

    March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0063 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0063. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    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 available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. Traveler, TSTF-545, Revision 3, includes a model application and is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15294A555. The final model safety evaluation (SE) for plant-specific adoption of TSTF-545, Revision 3, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15314A305.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle C. Honcharik, telephone: 301-415-1774; email: [email protected] For technical questions please contact Caroline Tilton, telephone: 301-415-0990; email: [email protected] Both are staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Traveler, TSTF-545, Revision 3, is applicable to all nuclear power plants. The proposed change revises the Standard TS (STS), NUREG-1430, “Standard Technical Specifications Babcock and Wilcox Plants,” NUREG-1431, “Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants,” NUREG-1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants,” NUREG-1433, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants BWR/4,” and NUREG-1434, “Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6.” This STS improvement is part of the CLIIP. NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434, Volume 1, can be accessed in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML12100A177, ML12100A222, ML12102A165, ML12104A192, and ML12104A195, respectively. NUREG-1430 through NUREG-1434, Volume 2, can be accessed in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML12100A178, ML12100A228, ML12102A169, ML12104A193, and ML12104A196, respectively.

    Specifically, the proposed change modifies the STS to eliminate the Chapter 5.0, “Administrative Controls,” specification Section 5.5, “Inservice Testing Program,” to remove requirements duplicated in American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code), Case OMN-20, “Inservice Test Frequency.” The ASME Code Case, OMN-20, provides similar definitions and allowances as in the current STS Inservice Testing Program. A new defined term, “Inservice Testing Program (IST),” is added to STS Section 1.1, “Definitions.” The STS Section 3.0, “Surveillance Requirement (SR) Applicability,” Bases are revised to explain the application of the usage rules to the Section 5.5 testing requirements. Existing uses of the term “Inservice Testing Program” in the STS and STS Bases are capitalized to indicate that it is now a defined term.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the model application for TSTF-545, Revision 3, and has found it acceptable for use by licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are responsible for reviewing the NRC's staff SE and the applicable technical bases, providing any necessary plant-specific information, and assessing the completeness and accuracy of their license amendment request (LAR). The NRC will process each amendment application responding to the Notice of Availability according to applicable NRC rules and procedures.

    The proposed change does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternate approach or proposing changes other than those proposed in TSTF-545, Revision 3. However, significant deviations from the approach recommended in this notice or the inclusion of additional changes to the license will require additional NRC staff review. This may increase the time and resources needed for the review and/or result in NRC staff rejection of the LAR. Licensees desiring significant deviations or additional changes should instead submit an LAR that does not claim to adopt TSTF-545, Revision 3.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Kevin Hsueh, Chief, Licensing Processes Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06945 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-09083; NRC-2015-0209] U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Multiple Locations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment application; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued Amendment No. 1 to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 to the U.S. Army, Installation Management Command (Army), for possession of Depleted Uranium (DU) from the Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds at the following Army installations: Donnelly Training Area, Fort Wainwright, AK (Alaska); Fort Benning, GA (Georgia); Fort Bragg, NC (North Carolina); Fort Campbell, KY (Kentucky); Fort Carson, CO (Colorado); Fort Gordon, GA (Georgia); Fort Hood, TX (Texas); Fort Hunter Liggett, CA (California); Fort Jackson, SC (South Carolina); Fort Knox, KY (Kentucky); Fort Polk, LA (Louisiana); Fort Riley, KS (Kentucky); Fort Sill, OK (Oklahoma); Joint Base Lewis-McChord/Yakima Training Center, WA (Washington); Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ (New Jersey); and Schofield Barracks/Pohakuloa Training Area, HI (Hawaii).

    This license amendment allows the Army to possess DU at the specified Army Installation sites where testing of Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds occurred.

    DATES:

    March 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0209 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0209. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    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 available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy M. Snyder, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6822, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NRC has issued Amendment No. 1 to Source Materials License No. SUC-1593 to the Army for possession of DU from Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds. This license amendment authorizes possession only of existing DU from Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds at the following Army installations: Donnelly Training Area, Fort Wainwright, AK; Fort Benning, GA; Fort Bragg, NC; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; Fort Gordon, GA; Fort Hood, TX; Fort Hunter Liggett, CA; Fort Jackson, SC; Fort Knox, KY; Fort Polk, LA; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Sill, OK; Joint Base Lewis-McChord/Yakima Training Center, WA; Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; and Schofield Barracks/Pohakuloa Training Area, HI.

    This license amendment allows the Army to conduct activities necessary for the possession and management of DU from Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds and fragments as a result of previous use of DU at the specified installations. The license amendment does not authorize the Army to place additional DU on the specified installations. This license amendment approves the Army's programmatic Radiation Safety Plan, programmatic Physical Security Plan, and programmatic Environmental Radiation Monitoring Plan (ERMP), which apply to all the sites (ranges) with DU from Davy Crockett M101 spotting rounds at the specified installations.

    In addition, the Army is required to conduct its operations at these installations in accordance with the conditions listed in Amendment No. 1 of Source Materials License No. SUC-1593. This license amendment prohibits the Army from performing decommissioning or ground disturbing activities to collect or remove DU fragments or contaminated soil that is identified during routine range activities without prior authorization from the NRC. Also, this license amendment requires that the Army develop a site-specific ERMP for each specified installation, using the criteria contained in the approved programmatic ERMP, and submit them to the NRC within 6 months of the effective date of this license amendment. The Army is required to fully implement the site-specific ERMPs within 6 months of their approval.

    Documents related to this license amendment application carry NRC docket ID NRC-2015-0209. The documents for this license amendment include the license amendment application (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML15161A454; ML15294A276; ML16004A369; and ML16048A358), the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230), and the license (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A234). Note that a complete listing of documents associated with the NRC staff's review of the Army's license amendment application is included in the SER.

    The Army's request for this license amendment was previously noticed in the Federal Register on September 4, 2015 (80 FR 53586), with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene. No requests for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene were filed on this proceeding.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    John R. Tappert, Director, Division of Decommissioning, Uranium Recovery, and Waste Programs, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06947 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-09; NRC-2016-0036] Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License amendment; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewed an application by the Department of Energy (DOE) for an amendment to License No. SNM-2504 that was renewed in 2011. Under this license, DOE is authorized to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials at the Fort St. Vrain (FSV) independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The DOE requested approval to revise response times stated in the license's technical specifications that are associated with fuel storage container leak tests, and to make an editorial change to the technical specifications table of contents.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0036 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0036. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    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 available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The DOE License Amendment Request is available electronically in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15068A009.

    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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Allen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6877; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    By application dated February 17, 2015, as supplemented March 9, and 18, 2015, DOE submitted to the NRC, in accordance with part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR), a request to amend License No. SNM-2504 for its FSV ISFSI located in Platteville, Colorado. This ISFSI contains spent fuel that was generated at the now- decommissioned FSV Nuclear Generating Station. License No. SNM-2504 authorizes DOE to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials at the FSV ISFSI. Specifically, DOE requested approval to revise response times stated in the license's technical specifications that are associated with fuel storage container leak tests, and to make an editorial change to the technical specifications table of contents.

    The NRC issued a letter dated March 9, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15069A008), notifying DOE that the application was acceptable for review. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(a), a notice of proposed action and opportunity for hearing was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21772). No requests for a hearing or for leave to intervene were submitted. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.46(d), the NRC is publishing this notice that the action proposed by DOE in its license amendment request has been taken.

    The NRC prepared a safety evaluation report (SER) that documents its review and evaluation of the amendment request. Also in connection with this action, the NRC prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16028A407) containing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Notice of Availability of the EA and FONSI for the FSV ISFSI was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2016 (81 FR 9002).

    Upon completing its review, the staff determined that the amendment request complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), as well as the NRC's applicable regulations. As required by the Act and such regulations, the staff made the appropriate findings which are contained in the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML15258A235) and the EA. Based on these findings, the NRC approved DOE's amendment request and accordingly issued Amendment No. 10 to License No. SNM-2504. Amendment No. 10 was effective as of its date of issuance on March 17, 2016.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Steve Ruffin, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06946 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    PRESIDIO TRUST Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY:

    The Presidio Trust.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with § 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 21, 2016, at the Observation Post, 211 Lincoln Boulevard, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California.

    The purposes of this meeting are to take action on the minutes of a previous Board meeting; to provide the Chairperson's report; to provide the Interim Leadership Team's report; to provide partners' reports; to provide committee reports; to take action on the revised fiscal year 2016 budget forecast and revised five-year construction plan; and to receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy.

    Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to April 14, 2016.

    DATES:

    The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Observation Post, 211 Lincoln Boulevard, Presidio of San Francisco.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrea Andersen, Acting General Counsel, the Presidio Trust, 103 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, California 94129-0052, Telephone: 415.561.5300.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Andrea M. Andersen, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-06905 Filed 3-25-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-77419; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-041] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the Eaton Vance Global Income Builder NextShares of the Eaton Vance ETMF Trust March 22, 2016.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 18, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes a proposed rule change with respect to the Eaton Vance Global Dividend Income NextShares (the “Fund”), a series of Eaton Vance ETMF Trust (the “Trust”).

    The proposed rule change is being filed to reflect a proposed revision to the Fund's name and to modify its investment objective and proposed investments (which are set forth in an order previously granted by the Commission).3

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74797 (Apr. 23, 2015), 80 FR 23831 (Apr. 29, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-036) (the “Prior Notice”); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75499 (Jul. 21, 2015), 80 FR 44406 (Jul. 27, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2015-036) (the “Prior Order,” and, together with the Prior Notice, the “Prior Release