Federal Register Vol. 81, No.66,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 66 (April 6, 2016)

Page Range19857-20218
FR Document

81_FR_66
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 20217 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to SomaliaPDF
81 FR 20215 - World Autism Awareness Day, 2016PDF
81 FR 20213 - National Public Health Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 20211 - National Donate Life Month, 2016PDF
81 FR 20046 - In the Matter of Go EZ Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 19967 - Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)PDF
81 FR 19994 - Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248PDF
81 FR 20049 - Twenty-Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (216) Aeronautical Systems SecurityPDF
81 FR 20047 - Thirty-First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee (213) Enhanced Flight Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)(Joint With EUROCAE WG-79)PDF
81 FR 20048 - Noise Exposure Map Notice for LA/Ontario International Airport, Ontario, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 19953 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection; Comment Request-Report of Disqualification From Participation-Institutions and Responsible Principals/Individuals (FNS-843) and Report of Disqualification From Participation-Individually Disqualified Responsible Principal/Individual or Day Care Home Provider (FNS-844)PDF
81 FR 19861 - Change of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) DesignationPDF
81 FR 19982 - National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 19978 - Advisory Committee; Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, RenewalPDF
81 FR 19998 - Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power ReactorsPDF
81 FR 19978 - Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of NoticePDF
81 FR 19931 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
81 FR 19999 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric and Gas; Reconciliation of Tier 1 Valve DifferencesPDF
81 FR 19954 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
81 FR 19955 - National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 19954 - Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 19863 - Public Access to InformationPDF
81 FR 19975 - Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of NoticePDF
81 FR 19939 - Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SCPDF
81 FR 19887 - Health Care for Certain Children of Vietnam Veterans and Certain Korea Veterans-Covered Birth Defects and Spina BifidaPDF
81 FR 19857 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 19988 - Privacy Act of 1974: Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 19932 - Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 19985 - Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 19956 - The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of ThingsPDF
81 FR 19942 - Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SCPDF
81 FR 19974 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 19997 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Extension, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal ContractorsPDF
81 FR 19944 - Radio Broadcasting Services; Raymond, WashingtonPDF
81 FR 19996 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Prevailing Wage DeterminationPDF
81 FR 19994 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Medical Support Notice-Part BPDF
81 FR 19995 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Petition Requirements and Investigative Data Collection: Trade Act of 1974, as AmendedPDF
81 FR 19981 - Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of AuthorityPDF
81 FR 19979 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 19983 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDSPDF
81 FR 19960 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 20003 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 20001 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 20000 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 19992 - Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; ColoradoPDF
81 FR 19962 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
81 FR 20053 - JLG Industries, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
81 FR 20002 - New Postal ProductPDF
81 FR 19994 - Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy CompactPDF
81 FR 19877 - Rights-of-Way on Indian LandPDF
81 FR 19963 - Notice of the Stakeholder Meeting To Receive Input on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Outyear Marine and Hydrokinetic Program StrategyPDF
81 FR 19991 - Notice of Public Meetings, Southwest Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 19983 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Brain TumorsPDF
81 FR 19984 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Skin CancerPDF
81 FR 19971 - Notice of Termination: 10342 Sunshine State Community Bank, Port Orange, FloridaPDF
81 FR 19971 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10259, Metro Bank of Dade County; Miami, FloridaPDF
81 FR 19971 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10084, First Piedmont Bank; Winder, GeorgiaPDF
81 FR 20055 - Tax Design Challenge; Requirements and Procedures; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 19963 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 19965 - White Pine Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 19965 - Innovative Solar 46, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 19965 - Michigan South Central Power Agency; Notice of FilingPDF
81 FR 19966 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Dalton Expansion ProjectPDF
81 FR 19878 - Burundi Sanctions RegulationsPDF
81 FR 19951 - Notice of Intent To Request New Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 19962 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Application (1894-0001)PDF
81 FR 19961 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 19896 - Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure, Order on ReconsiderationPDF
81 FR 19970 - FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, March 31, 2016PDF
81 FR 19969 - Schedule Change and Deletion of Consent Agenda Items From March 31, 2016 Open MeetingPDF
81 FR 19990 - Proposed Information Collection; Captive Wildlife Safety ActPDF
81 FR 19976 - Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level; Draft Guidance for Industry; Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants; Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 20030 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, Amending Its Rules Relating to Pre-Opening Indications and Opening Procedures To Promote Greater Efficiency and Transparency at the Open of Trading on the ExchangePDF
81 FR 20049 - Notice of Proposed Policy Statement on the Implementation of the Phased Increase in Domestic Content Under the Buy America Waiver for Rolling StockPDF
81 FR 20051 - Notice of Proposed Public Interest Waiver of Buy America Domestic Content Requirements for Rolling Stock Procurements In Limited CircumstancesPDF
81 FR 20007 - Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 20004 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk ProtectionPDF
81 FR 20021 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Market Wide Risk ProtectionPDF
81 FR 20016 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the Elkhorn S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll Commodity ETF of Elkhorn ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 20024 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Adopting Requirements for the Collection and Transmission of Data Pursuant to Appendices B and C of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 20040 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Exchange Rule 11.26 To Implement the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 19902 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash ProtectionPDF
81 FR 19944 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash ProtectionPDF
81 FR 20055 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and MemorialsPDF
81 FR 19956 - Taking and Importing of Marine MammalsPDF
81 FR 20054 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8582-CRPDF
81 FR 19993 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 19992 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 19971 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0001, -0174, -0188 & -0191)PDF
81 FR 19974 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 20046 - Public HearingPDF
81 FR 19860 - Amendment of Class D Airspace for Bartow, FLPDF
81 FR 19858 - Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lake City, FLPDF
81 FR 19923 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; U.S. Captive-Bred Inter-subspecific Crossed or Generic TigersPDF
81 FR 19904 - Accounting and Reporting of Business Combinations, Security Investments, Comprehensive Income, Derivative Instruments, and Hedging ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 19934 - Disaster Assistance Loan Program; Disaster Loan Mitigation, Contractor Malfeasance and Secured ThresholdPDF
81 FR 19884 - Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River Mile 95.7 to 96.7; New Orleans, LAPDF
81 FR 19936 - Labeling and Advertising of Home InsulationPDF
81 FR 19891 - Hexythiazox; Pesticide TolerancesPDF
81 FR 20058 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To List Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) as Endangered or Threatened and Revision of Current Listings Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 19933 - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Promotion; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 20092 - Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal FoodPDF
81 FR 20172 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units; Technical CorrectionPDF

Issue

81 66 Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Economic Research Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 19960-19961 2016-07879 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19974-19975 2016-07806 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Lower Mississippi River Mile 95.7 to 96.7, New Orleans, LA, 19884-19886 2016-07729 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC, 19939-19941 2016-07898 Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC, 19942-19944 2016-07891 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19961-19962 2016-07848
Economic Research Economic Research Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19951-19953 2016-07850 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Teacher Incentive Fund Application, 19962 2016-07849 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 19962-19963 2016-07874
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Meetings: Receive Input on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Outyear Marine and Hydrokinetic Program Strategy, 19963 2016-07867 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, etc., 20172-20207 2016-06563 Pesticide Tolerances: Hexythiazox, 19891-19896 2016-07661 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Science Advisory Board, 19967-19969 2016-07918 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Amendment of Class D Airspace: Bartow, FL, 19860-19861 2016-07783 Change of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Designation, 19861-19863 2016-07910 Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace: Lake City, FL, 19858-19860 2016-07782 NOTICES Meetings: RTCA Special Committee Aeronautical Systems Security, 20049 2016-07916 RTCA Special Committee Enhanced Flight Visions Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems, 20047-20048 2016-07915 Noise Exposure Maps: LA/Ontario International Airport, Ontario, CA, 20048-20049 2016-07914 Federal Bureau Federal Bureau of Investigation NOTICES Meetings: Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, 19994 2016-07869 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Unlicensed -- National Information Infrastructure: Order on Reconsideration, 19896-19902 2016-07847 PROPOSED RULES Radio Broadcasting Services: Raymond, WA, 19944 2016-07888 NOTICES Meetings: Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, March 31, 2016, 19970-19971 2016-07846 Schedule Change and Deletion of Consent Agenda Items from March 31, 2016 Open Meeting, 19969-19970 2016-07844 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19971-19974 2016-07819 Terminations of Receiverships: 10084, First Piedmont Bank Winder, GA, 19971 2016-07859 10259, Metro Bank of Dade County Miami, FL, 19971 2016-07860 10342 Sunshine State Community Bank Port Orange, FL, 19971 2016-07861 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 19963-19965 2016-07857 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC, 19966-19967 2016-07853 Filings: Michigan South Central Power Agency, 19965 2016-07854 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Innovative Solar 46, LLC, 19965 2016-07855 White Pine Solar, LLC, 19965-19966 2016-07856 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 19974 2016-07890 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation, 19936-19939 2016-07679 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Proposed Policy Statement on the Implementation of the Phased Increase in Domestic Content under the Buy America Waiver for Rolling Stock, 20049-20051 2016-07837 Public Interest Waiver of Buy America Domestic Content Requirements for Rolling Stock Procurements In Limited Circumstances, 20051-20053 2016-07836 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas); Listing and Revision of Current Listings, 20058-20090 2016-07587 U.S. Captive-bred Inter-subspecific Crossed or Generic Tigers, 19923-19931 2016-07762 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Captive Wildlife Safety Act, 19990-19991 2016-07841 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food, 20092-20170 2016-07330 NOTICES Charter Renewals: Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 19978-19979 2016-07908 Guidance; Availability: Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level; Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants; Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report, 19976-19978 2016-07840 Meetings: Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee, 19978 2016-07906 Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment, 19975-19976 2016-07899 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service PROPOSED RULES Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Promotion; Correction, 19933-19934 2016-07454 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Report of Disqualification from Participation—Institutions and Responsible Principals/Individuals and Report of Disqualification from Participation—Individually Disqualified Responsible Principal/Individual or Day Care Home Provider, 19953-19954 2016-07913 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office RULES Burundi Sanctions Regulations, 19878-19884 2016-07851 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, 19983 2016-07880
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, 19982-19983 2016-07909 Petitions: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 19979-19981 2016-07881 Statements of Organization, Functions and Delegations of Authority, 19981-19982 2016-07882 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 19857-19858 2016-07896 PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act; Systems of Records: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System System of Records, 19932-19933 2016-07894 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 19985-19990 2016-07893 2016-07895
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau RULES Rights-of-Way on Indian Land, 19877-19878 2016-07868 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20054-20055 2016-07822 Tax Design Challenge; Requirements and Procedures; Correction, 20055 2016-07858 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China, 19954-19955 2016-07901 Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan, 19954 2016-07903 Justice Department Justice Department See

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Labor Department Labor Department See

Wage and Hour Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Prevailing Wage Determination, 19996-19997 2016-07887 National Medical Support Notice-Part B, 19994-19995 2016-07886 Petition Requirements and Investigative Data Collection, 19995-19996 2016-07885
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Southwest Resource Advisory Council, 19991-19992 2016-07866 Plats of Surveys: Colorado, 19992 2016-07875 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection, 19902-19904 2016-07828 NOTICES Petitions for Decisions of Inconsequential Noncompliance: JLG Industries, Inc., 20053-20054 2016-07872 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, 19955 2016-07902 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Brain Tumors, 19983-19984 2016-07865 Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Skin Cancer, 19984-19985 2016-07864 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: Eleven Distinct Population Segments of the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas); Listing and Revision of Current Listings, 20058-20090 2016-07587 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 19931 2016-07905 NOTICES Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals, 19956 2016-07823 National Park National Park Service NOTICES National Register of Historic Places: Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 19992-19994 2016-07820 2016-07821 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things, 19956-19960 2016-07892 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric and Gas, 19999-20000 2016-07904 Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors, 19998-19999 2016-07907 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Proposed Notice of Sale for Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248, 19994 2016-07917 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 20000-20004 2016-07862 2016-07863 2016-07870 2016-07871 2016-07876 2016-07877 2016-07878 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Donate Life Month (Proc. 9415), 20209-20212 2016-08077 National Public Health Week (Proc. 9416), 20213-20214 2016-08082 World Autism Awareness Day (Proc. 9417), 20215-20216 2016-08083 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Somalia; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of April 4, 2016), 20217-20218 2016-08084 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Advisors Asset Management, Inc. and AAM ETF Trust, 20007-20016 2016-07835 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 20016-20021 2016-07832 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 20004-20007 2016-07834 ISE Gemini, LLC, 20021-20024 2016-07833 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 20040-20046 2016-07830 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 20030-20040 2016-07838 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20024-20030 2016-07831 Trading Suspension Orders: Go EZ Corp., 20046 2016-07967 Small Business Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Disaster Assistance Loan Program: Disaster Loan Mitigation, Contractor Malfeasance and Secured Threshold, 19934-19936 2016-07750 State Department State Department RULES Public Access to Information, 19863-19876 2016-07900 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board RULES Accounting and Reporting of Business Combinations, Security Investments, Comprehensive Income, Derivative Instruments, and Hedging Activities, 19904-19922 2016-07759 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Hearings: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 20046-20047 2016-07799 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Occupant Crash Protection; Rulemaking Petition, Denial, 19944-19950 2016-07827
Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Health Care for Certain Children of Vietnam Veterans and Certain Korea Veterans: Covered Birth Defects and Spina Bifida, 19887-19891 2016-07897 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials, 20055-20056 2016-07826 Wage Wage and Hour Division NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors, 19997-19998 2016-07889 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20058-20090 2016-07587 Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 20058-20090 2016-07587 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration, 20092-20170 2016-07330 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency, 20172-20207 2016-06563 Part V Presidential Documents, 20209-20218 2016-08077 2016-08082 2016-08083 2016-08084 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 66 Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2016-0025] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records AGENCY:

Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to exempt portions of an existing system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records” from certain provisions of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the Department exempts portions of the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records” from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

DATES:

This final rule is effective April 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 81 FR 3758, on January 22, 2016, to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. DHS issued the “Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records” in the Federal Register at 81 FR 3811 on January 22, 2016, to provide notice to the public that DHS was adding two new consumers to the “DHS Watchlist Service.” DHS also clarified an existing category of individuals, added two new categories of individuals, and clarified the categories of records maintained in this system. DHS invited comments on both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and System of Records Notice (SORN).

II. Public Comments

DHS received three comments. Two comments were from private individuals who complemented DHS for this update. DHS received an identical comment from a public interest research center on the SORN and NPRM. The commenter raised concerns regarding the number of exemptions taken by DHS, particularly exemptions related to access and accounting for disclosures. Specifically, the commenter questioned the need to exempt records once an investigation was complete.

In response, DHS emphasizes that the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) belongs to the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). DHS does not change or alter these records. All records within the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records are collected and disseminated by the DOJ/FBI and are covered by the DOJ/FBI-019, “Terrorist Screening Records Center System,” 72 FR 77846 (Dec. 14, 2011). Because DHS does not make any changes to the records obtained from DOJ/FBI, the same exemptions outlined in the DOJ/FBI SORN, and reasons provided in its implementing regulations for use of such exemptions at 28 CFR 16.96, transfer and apply. For instance, disclosing this information to individuals who have been misidentified as known or suspected terrorists due to a close name similarity, and of which the investigation has been completed, could reveal the Government's investigative interest in a terrorist suspect for an ongoing investigation, because it could make known the name of the individual who actually is the subject of the Government's interest. Similarly, providing any type of notice to a misidentified known or suspected terrorist due to a close name similarity could alert the actual known or suspected terrorist of the Government's investigative interest in that individual. Further, amendment of these records would impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations, analyses, and reports to be continuously reinvestigated and revised. DHS is not taking any new exemptions as a result of the expansion to the categories of individuals in the TSDB. As noted in the NPRM, permitting access and amendment to watchlist records could disclose sensitive information that could be detrimental to national security. Release of the accounting of disclosures could reveal the details of watchlist matching measures, as well as capabilities and vulnerabilities of the watchlist matching process, the release of which could permit an individual to evade future detection and thereby impede efforts to ensure national security.

However, DHS does agree that some of the exemptions proposed in the NPRM are unnecessary. With the publication of this Final Rule, DHS is removing the exemption from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because DHS has already established requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to individual access and will review each request for access on a case-by-case basis. Concurrent with this Final Rule, DHS is republishing the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records to reflect this change.

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

Freedom of information, Privacy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS amends chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

2. In appendix C to part 5, revise paragraph 66 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 66. The DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its Components. The DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, the enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings thereunder; and national security and intelligence activities. The Terrorist Screening Database belongs to the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). DHS does not change or alter these records. All records within the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records are collected and disseminated by the DOJ/FBI and are covered by the DOJ/FBI-019, “Terrorist Screening Records Center System,” 72 FR 77846 (Dec. 14, 2011). Because DHS does not make any changes to the records obtained from DOJ/FBI, the same exemptions outlined in the DOJ/FBI SORN, and reasons provided in its implementing regulations for use of such exemptions at 28 CFR 16.96, transfer and apply. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(5), (e)(8), and (g). When a record has been received from DOJ/FBI-019 Terrorist Screening Records System of Records and has been exempted in that source system, DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for that original primary system of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here. Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.

(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.

(f) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.

(g) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.

(h) From subsection (g) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

Dated: March 22, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2016-07896 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-4010; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-11] Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lake City, FL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Lake City, FL, providing the controlled airspace required for the Air Traffic Control Tower at Lake City Gateway Airport. This action also amends existing Class E airspace by recognizing the airport's name change. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. A minor adjustment is made to the geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, May 26, 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/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 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 establishes Class D and Class E airspace, and amends Class E airspace at Lake City Gateway Airport, Lake City, FL.

History

On January 13, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace, and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lake City Gateway Airport, Lake City, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the Air Traffic Control Tower (81 FR 1590) FAA-2015-4010. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found an error in the geographic coordinates of Lake City Gateway Airport. This action corrects that error.

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 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 part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at Lake City Gateway Airport, Lake City, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the Air Traffic Control Tower. Class D airspace extending upward from the surface up to and including 2,500 feet is established within a 4.2 mile radius of the airport. Class E surface area airspace is established within a 4.2 mile radius of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is amended by changing the airport's name from Lake City Municipal Airport to Lake City Gateway Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for IFR operations. The geographic latitude coordinate of the airport is adjusted from “lat. 30°10′56″ N.”, to “lat. 30°10′55″ N.” for the Class D and E airspace areas.

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. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 FL D Lake City, FL [New] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′55″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet within a 4.2-mile radius of Lake City Gateway 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. ASO FL E2 Lake City, FL [New] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′55″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

Within a 4.2-mile radius of Lake City Gateway 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 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO FL E5 Lake City, FL [Amended] Lake City Gateway Airport, FL (Lat. 30°10′55″ N., long. 82°34′37″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Lake City Gateway Airport.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 29, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-07782 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4239; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-4] Amendment of Class D Airspace for Bartow, FL AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action amends Class D Airspace at Bartow Municipal Airport, Bartow, FL, by adjusting the ceiling of the Class D airspace area from 2,600 feet to 1,600 feet above the surface. This change allows the air traffic control tower at Tampa International Airport, Tampa, FL, to carry out Letter of Agreement procedures, already established, between Bartow Air Traffic Control Tower and Tampa Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) and for Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, May 26, 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/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 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 amends Class D airspace at Bartow Municipal Airport, Bartow, FL.

History

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the Class D airspace description for Bartow Municipal Airport, Bartow, FL, published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, describes the ceiling as, extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL. The Tampa International Airport Class B airspace area has control of aircraft operating at and above 1,800 feet MSL in the Bartow, FL, Class D airspace area. The FAA is lowering the Class D airspace area to 1,600 feet MSL to avoid the overlap between the two facilities. To avoid confusion on the part of the pilots overflying the Bartow, FL, area, the FAA finds that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. To be consistent with the FAA's safety mandate when an unsafe condition exists, the FAA finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days to promote the safe and efficient handling of air traffic in the area.

Class D airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by lowering the Class D ceiling airspace area from 2,600 feet MSL to and including 1,600 feet MSL at Bartow Municipal Airport, Bartow, FL. The Letter of Agreement between Tampa TRACON and Bartow ATCT, established June 3, 2013, states that Tampa TRACON shall control aircraft operating at or above 1,800 feet MSL in the Bartow Airport Class D airspace area. This airspace change eliminates pilot confusion for those aircraft operating above 1,600 feet MSL in the Bartow Airport Class D airspace area.

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. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 FL D Bartow, FL [Amended] Bartow Municipal Airport, FL (Lat. 27°56′36″ N., long. 81°47′00″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 1,600 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Bartow Municipal 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.

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 29, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-07783 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No.: FAA-2008-0221] Change of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Designation AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Change of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Designation.

SUMMARY:

This document announces that the FAA will designate Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) as a Level 2, schedule-facilitated airport under the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG) effective for the Winter 2016 scheduling season, which begins on October 30, 2016. The FAA has determined this designation is necessary based on an updated demand and capacity analysis of the airport. The current FAA Order designating EWR as a Level 3, slot-controlled airport will expire on October 29, 2016.

DATES:

This designation takes effect on October 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-220 Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; facsimile: 202-267-7277; or by email to: [email protected]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For questions contact: Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-6462; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

By Order dated May 21, 2008, the FAA placed temporary limits on scheduled operations at EWR to mitigate congestion and delays at the airport.1 The Order addressed the FAA's concern about a spillover effect in the summer 2008 scheduling season resulting from the Agency's Order limiting operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), which took effect in March 2008.2

1 73 FR 29550 (May 21, 2008).

2 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008).

Under the EWR Order, the FAA (1) established hourly limits of 81 scheduled operations during the peak period; (2) imposed an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs or slots) with defined exceptions; (3) provided a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) established procedures to allocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and, (5) allowed for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

On January 8, 2015, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and FAA issued the Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).3 The DOT and FAA are currently reviewing the comments received on the NPRM and considering the impacts of the EWR Level 2 designation on the rulemaking.

3 80 FR 1274.

Based on the FAA's review of operational performance, demand, and capacity discussed in this document, Level 3 slot controls are no longer warranted for EWR. Rather, the FAA will transition EWR to a Level 2, schedule-facilitated airport, starting with the Winter 2016 scheduling season. In addition, the FAA also has updated the performance, demand, and capacity analyses for JFK and LGA and has determined that Level 3 slot-controlled restrictions remain necessary for these airports. Therefore, through separate notices published in the Federal Register, the FAA will be extending the JFK and LGA Orders until October 27, 2018.

This document confirms the EWR Order will expire on October 29, 2016. A copy of this document will be placed in Docket FAA-2008-0221. As explained herein, the FAA is designating EWR as a Level 2 airport effective October 30, 2016. As further explained in this document, the FAA has conducted a screening for potential impacts to noise and air emissions as a result of this change in designation at EWR and has determined that the proposed action does not have the potential to cause a significant impact.

Capacity and Operational Performance Review

The FAA regularly reviews operational performance and demand at the New York City area airports as part of ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the air traffic control system. Section 413 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11 (Feb. 14, 2012), requires the FAA to take actions to ensure that aircraft operations of air carriers do not exceed the hourly maximum departure and arrival rate established by the Administrator for such operations. The FAA reviews data on actual operations, including the number of hourly and daily air traffic operations, runway capacity and utilization, aircraft fleet mix, scheduled and unscheduled demand, on-time performance relative to schedule, the number and duration of flight arrival and departure delays, airfield or other capacity changes, and air traffic control procedures.

On an annual basis since adopting the 2008 Order, the FAA has performed analyses to compare and contrast operational and performance data for each year subsequent to the peak 2007 summer scheduling season to identify operational and performance trends. Such analyses have consistently placed particular emphasis on the May through August months since this period includes the peak summer demand. The on-time performance and delay metrics at EWR show significant improvements during such peak periods of demand. For example, on-time gate arrivals at EWR have increased by about 11 percentage points when comparing May through August 2015 to the same period in 2007.4 On-time gate departures improved by approximately three percentage points. The mean arrival and departure delays are down by about 33 percent, and the delays greater than 60 minutes are down by 37 percent for arrivals and 38 percent for departures.

4 On-time gate arrivals have a gate arrival delay of less than 15 minutes. The gate arrival delay is the difference in minutes between the actual time the aircraft arrives at the gate and the scheduled gate arrival time.

The FAA recently modeled the summer 2015 demand against summer 2015 runway capacity and then compared the results to the delay profile that was the basis for the 2008 Order. Operations in 2015 were down by 8 percent, total minutes of arrival delays went from 16,100 to 10,100 for a 37 percent decrease, mean arrival delays decreased from 24.0 minutes to 16.3 minutes, and mean departure delays from 18.0 minutes to 14.2 minutes.5

5 A copy of the MITRE summary of performance comparing 2015 and 2007 has been placed in the dockets for the EWR Order (Docket No. FAA-2008-0221), JFK Order (Docket No. FAA-2007-29320), LGA Order (Docket No. FAA-2006-25755) and the Slot Management and Transparency for LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport NPRM (Docket No. FAA-2014-1073).

The FAA also reviewed scheduled flights at EWR over the last few years. Scheduled demand was routinely below the 81 hourly scheduling limits in the Order, even during the busiest early morning, afternoon, and evening hours. For example, in the 3 p.m. through 8:59 p.m. local hours, weekday scheduled demand in the May-August period averaged 71 flights per hour in 2011, 74 flights per hour in 2013, and 72 flights per hour in 2015.6 Early summer 2016 schedules reflect similar demand patterns. At the same time, the FAA denied requests for new flights as slots are allocated up to the scheduling limits. Carriers are generally maintaining historic slots and meeting the minimum usage rules under the Order; therefore, weekday slots in peak hours do not regularly revert to the FAA for reallocation. The result is scheduled demand that is well below the FAA scheduling limits and runway capacity at the airport to handle additional flights. This is unlike other FAA slot-controlled airports, which have significantly fewer differences between the number of allocated slots and the scheduled demand, especially in peak periods.

6 There are a few additional flights by carriers such as FedEx and UPS that are allocated slots and do not publish schedules in the FAA's Innovata schedule database.

FAA Level 2 Determination and Planned Schedule Review

In light of the FAA's demand and capacity analysis at EWR, the FAA has determined that EWR does not warrant a Level 3 designation. The FAA's analysis demonstrates that runway capacity exists for additional operations. However, under a Level 3 designation, the FAA must deny requests from carriers to add or retime operations based on allocated slots rather than scheduled and actual operations, provided the carrier satisfies the minimum slot usage requirements. Further, the FAA simply cannot increase the scheduling limits to compensate for slots that are under-scheduled but meet the minimum usage rules, as this would require the FAA to determine that additional capacity exists for operations above the current scheduling limits.

The FAA also considered whether EWR should be re-designated as a Level 1 airport since EWR operated for many years without scheduling limits while nearby JFK and LGA were slot controlled. During this time, EWR provided access to the New York City area and, while delays were high compared to other airports, overall demand was generally consistent with runway capacity. However, there are practical limitations to the number of additional flights that EWR can accept from a runway and airport facilities perspective. Moreover, we expect there will be significant demand for access to EWR, given its location and that the JFK and LGA airports will remain slot-controlled airports. Thus, the FAA has determined that the Level 2 schedule facilitation process and its related principles of voluntary cooperation will best balance the anticipated demand with the practical limitations on the number of additional flights possible at EWR. Following the effective date of the Level 2 designation, the FAA will continue to review whether Level 2 is appropriate or whether other action might be needed. The FAA does not expect to make any airport level changes based on short-term airline schedule plans or resulting delays.

Consistent with existing FAA practice for schedule facilitation at Level 2 airports, under the Level 2 designation at EWR, the FAA will request and review airline schedules for the 6 a.m. to 10:59 p.m. period and either approve the request or work with carriers to achieve schedule adjustments as needed to avoid exceeding the airport's capacity. The success of Level 2 schedule facilitation procedures depends upon a number of factors delineated in the WSG. The FAA will apply the priorities for schedule facilitation outlined in the WSG. In particular, priority will be given to carriers based on actual approved schedules and operations conducted in the previous corresponding season over new demand for the same timings.

Additionally, although there is some runway capacity available at EWR, approval of new or retimed operations must avoid significant scheduled peaking and allow for recovery to avoid causing a consistent level of unacceptable delay, which could necessitate a return to Level 3. The FAA intends, if necessary, to deny schedule submissions that exceed the declared airport runway capacity and to offer alternative times to carriers. The WSG recognizes that some carriers might operate at times without approval from the airport's schedule facilitator. Consistent with the WSG, carriers would not receive historic status for such flights if the airport level changes from Level 2 to Level 3.

Finally, while the FAA is responsible for managing the airport's runway capacity, there are terminal, gate, and other operational factors that may require schedule adjustments. The FAA recognizes that the entry at EWR has been limited by runway slot availability for the last 8 years and new entry and growth by incumbent carriers is expected. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) currently reviews schedules for international passenger flights operating at Terminal B. A carrier must separately obtain approval from the Port Authority for Terminal B flights and request runway slots from the FAA under the current Level 3 designation Order. After the effective date for the Level 2 designation, carriers would continue to work with the Port Authority to synchronize with the relevant terminals and gates at EWR to the extent practicable. Under existing practice, the FAA regularly works with the Port Authority and carriers to reconcile differences between available terminal/gate and runway times. The FAA expects this process to continue under the Level 2 designation based on impacts to the availability of facilities. This necessary de-conflicting of carriers' requested terminal/gate and runway schedules is likely to be most significant in the initial transition from Level 3 to Level 2 in the Winter 2016 and Summer 2017 seasons.

Environmental Considerations

The FAA conducted an environmental screening for potential impacts to noise and air emissions relative to the change of the EWR designation from Level 3 to Level 2. Based on the screening, the FAA has determined that this action may be categorically excluded from further environmental analysis according to FAA Order 1050.1, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.6.f. Specifically, paragraph 5-6.6.f states that “Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment)” are categorically excluded from further environmental review.

The FAA conducted noise screening of the proposed action using Area Equivalent Method and determined that the action does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on noise levels of noise sensitive areas. In addition, the FAA conducted an analysis of air emissions using Aviation Environmental Design Tool and determined that the action does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on air quality or a violation of Federal, state, tribal, or local air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q. Therefore, implementation of the airport level change is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the human environment. The implementation of this action is not expected to result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1. A copy of the categorical exclusion has been placed in the docket associated with this action.

Future Operational Demand and Performance Reviews

The FAA will continue to regularly review and monitor performance at EWR, as well as carrier compliance with FAA-approved schedules. The FAA will continue to review data on actual operations, including the number of hourly and daily air traffic operations, runway capacity and utilization, aircraft fleet mix, scheduled and unscheduled demand, on-time performance relative to schedule, the number and duration of flight arrival and departure delays, airfield or other capacity changes, and air traffic control procedures. The FAA will publish a notice in April, 2016 announcing the schedule submission deadline and the declared runway capacity limits for the Winter 2016 scheduling season.

The FAA expects that delays at EWR will increase over current levels as flights are added, but an incremental increase in delays would not necessarily mean the FAA would revert to Level 3. The FAA's objective while working with carriers under the Level 2 process is to appropriately balance and maximize the use of the available runway capacity at EWR while maintaining an acceptable level of delay.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 1, 2016. Daniel E. Smiley, Acting Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-07910 Filed 4-1-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Part 171 RIN 1400-AD44 [Public Notice: 9510] Public Access to Information AGENCY:

Department of State.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of State (the Department) finalizes its revisions to its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act. The final rule reflects changes in FOIA and other statutes and consequent changes in the Department's procedures since the last revision of the Department's regulations on this subject.

DATES:

This rule is effective on May 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alice Kottmyer, Office of the Legal Adviser, Office of Management, U.S. Department of State, [email protected], (202) 647-2318.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July 28, 2015, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update its FOIA and Privacy Act rules contained in 22 CFR part 171. See 80 FR 44898, and the discussion therein.

This rulemaking responds to public comments and finalizes the rule. The rule is finalized as published in the NPRM, except for minor format edits; modifications, as indicated below, in response to public comments; and the addition of one clause to § 171.24(a), which codifies a longstanding provision of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3)), and which was inadvertently omitted from the NPRM. Since § 171.24(a) is substantially the same as 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) in the Privacy Act itself, it need not be published for comment.

Response to Public Comments

The Department would like to thank the members of the public who invested time in reviewing the proposed changes to the FOIA and Privacy Act regulations, and for providing very useful feedback.

First Public Comment

The first commenter expressed concern about the proposal for the Department to charge a fee of 15 cents per page of duplication. The commenter pointed out that present day photocopying and scanning is relatively cheap, and expressed a belief that the Department's lease arrangements reflect a significantly lesser per page cost than 15 cents; in addition, he stated that other agencies' costs vary and might be lower, and no evidence was provided on how the Department formulated the fee. He stated that some other agencies have lowered duplication costs in their regulations in the last two years to be in line with actual direct costs.

Department Response

The fee charged for photocopying at the Department is 15 cents per page, which is charged at a standard rate throughout the Department for copying services. This charge is based on the costs calculated by examining paper costs, machinery, and services provided to produce a photocopy. Other agencies and departments charge FOIA duplication fees that range from five cents to twenty cents per page. The Department's duplication fee of fifteen cents per page is in line with what other agencies and departments charge for duplication. For this reason, the Department declines to change the duplication fee as suggested.

Second Public Comment

This comment expressed the following six points:

1. In proposed § 171.11, Processing requests, the proposed regulations state that a requester “shall be considered to have agreed to pay applicable fees up to $25, unless a fee waiver is granted.” The commenters believe that the Department should follow Department of Justice's regulations and provide that no fees will be assessed if the fees are under $25, which is their approximate cost of collecting fees. Also, they believe the Department should at least limit the presumption to instances in which a fee waiver has not been requested, per the Department of Justice's superseded regulations.

Department Response to Point 1

The Department accepts the Justice Department's estimate that the cost to collect fees is approximately $25.00. The Department agrees to revise § 171.14, “Fees to be charged,” to state the current cost of collecting a fee is $25.00; therefore, the Department will process requests without assessing fees up to $25.00. The Department will also revise this section to state that the Department will attempt to notify the requester if fees are estimated to exceed $25.00, including a breakdown of the fees for search, review or duplication, unless the requester has indicated a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated.

2. In proposed § 171.11(f), the commenters are concerned that the appeal of expedited processing is submitted to the Director of IPS, the same Director who is responsible for issuing initial determinations on requests. The regulations should clearly state if the Director is receiving the appeals on behalf of the Appeal Review Panel.

Department Response to Point 2

The Department's Appeals Review Panel does not review appeals from denials of expedited processing. See 22 CFR 171.13(a). For this reason, the Department will not revise § 171.11(f) as suggested. The Department will revise § 171.11(a) to state that the Division Chief, Requester Liaison Division, in the Office of Information Programs and Services, will issue all initial decisions on whether a request is valid or perfected, and whether to grant or deny requests for a fee waiver and for expedited processing.

3. The acknowledgement letter in subsection (i) should include the receipt date, to assist requesters with determining an agency's statutory response deadline.

Department Response to Point 3

The Department will revise § 171.11(e), “Receipt of request”, to include a subsection that states that upon receipt IPS will send an acknowledgement letter to the requester that will identify the date of receipt of the request in the proper component, as identified in § 171.11(a), and the case tracking number. Subsection (i) sets forth the information that is available to a requester by contacting the FOIA Requester Service Center.

4. The Department's proposed consultation procedures in subsection (m) are limited to agencies only. They do not account for consultations that may be required with the Office of the White House Counsel. The commenters believe the regulations should address its FOIA-related consultations with the Office of White House Counsel.

Department Response to Point 4

Section 171.11(m) “Referrals and Consultations” states that the Department will refer documents created by another agency to that agency for a release determination. In practice, the implementation of this section turns on the identity of the originator of a document and not on whether the originator works in an agency or department or other governmental entity. The Department will revise subsection (m) as follows: “If the Department determines that Department records retrieved as responsive to the request are of interest to another agency or Federal government office, it may consult with the other agency or office before responding to the request.”

5. Business information. The Department should specify a minimum number of days that submitters will have to provide comments and to file a “reverse-FOIA” lawsuit, respectively. This is preferred over a “reasonable period of time”. The commenters recognize that circumstances might warrant providing one submitter with more time than another. They believe five business days would be considered a “reasonable period of time,” as Executive Order 12600 requires.

Department Response to Point 5

The Department declines to revise this subsection as suggested, because providing some flexibility to submitters in seeking input in response to a notice issued under this subsection ensures the best outcome for the requesters, the submitters, and the Department.

6. In § 171.16, Waiver or reduction of fees, the commenters are concerned with the Department responding to fee waiver appeals within “30 working days” from the date of receipt. Unless unusual circumstances exist, an agency must make a determination on a fee waiver appeal within 20 working days. Furthermore, they ask for clarification on who will adjudicate the fee waiver appeals, as it is presumably not the “Director of IPS” who issues fee determinations.

Department Response to Point 6

The Department will revise § 171.16(e) to state that the Department must respond to an appeal of a denial of a fee waiver or fee reduction request within 20 working days. The Department's Appeals Review Panel does not review appeals from a denial of a fee waiver. See 22 CFR 171.13(a). The Department will revise § 171.16 (e) to state that the Division Chief of the Requester Liaison Division in IPS will issue all initial decisions on whether to grant or deny requests for a fee waiver and that appeals should be directed to the Director of IPS.

Third Public Comment

The third public comment was submitted by the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). OGIS suggested adding to the end of § 171.13(d) the following or similar language: “If the requester elects to engage in the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration, the Department of State must actively engage as a partner to the mediation process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.”

Department Response

The Department understands the importance of resolving disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies, and will revise this subsection as follows: “When the Department of State engages in the mediation services offered by OGIS, it will work in good faith as a partner to the mediation process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The Department reserves its right to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to enter into formal mediation offered by OGIS.”

Fourth Public Comment

This comment, from Cause of Action, suggests that the Department revise its definition of a representative of the news media, following an opinion of the District of Columbia Circuit Court in Cause of Action v. Federal Trade Commission. While the Department's proposed rule states that those requesting news media status “make their products available to the general public,” Cause of Action requests that the Department include a non-exhaustive list of the methods an agency must consider when analyzing this element of the test, including: “newsletters, press releases, press contacts, a Web site, and planned reports.”

Furthermore, Cause of Action raised concern over the “middleman standard” not being included in the Department's regulatory definition. Cause of Action stated that the D.C. Circuit Court “disagreed with the suggestion that a public interest advocacy organization cannot satisfy the statute's distribution criterion because it is `more like a middleman for dissemination to the media than a representative of the media itself '. . . There is no indication that Congress meant to distinguish between those who reach their ultimate audiences directly and those who partner with others to do so.” Cause of Action believes that the final rule should draw a distinction between those that market FOIA information for their direct economic benefit and the Court's direction that “public interest advocacy organizations” can “partner with others” to disseminate their distinct works.

Department Response

The regulation states that the examples provided regarding who may qualify for news media status are not all-inclusive; therefore, the Department does not believe that providing another non all-inclusive list would help shed light on the process the Department employs.

The Department agrees that this information may be helpful for requesters to understand how IPS analyzes a request for representative in the news media status. For this reason, the Department will add this information to its public FOIA Web site.

In the second comment (regarding the “middleman standard”), the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has policy-making responsibility for issuing fee guidance. For this reason, the Department defers to OMB with regard to this suggestion.

Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act

The Department published this rule under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, with a 60-day public comment period.

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.

Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

This 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 Reform Act of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This 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.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

The Department has reviewed this regulation in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132—Federalism

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this regulation.

Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

The Department has determined that this 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 rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563—Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

The Department has considered this rule in light of these Executive Orders and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein. The benefits of this rulemaking for the public include, but are not limited to, providing an up-to-date procedure for requesting information from the Department. The Department is aware of no cost to the public from this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not impose or revise any reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 171

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Privacy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 171 is revised to read as follows:

PART 171—PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION Subpart A—General Policy and Procedures Sec. 171.1 General provisions. 171.2 Types of records maintained. 171.3 Records available on the Department's Web site. 171.4 Requests for information—types and how made. 171.5 Archival records. Subpart B—Freedom of Information Act Provisions 171.10 Purpose and scope. 171.11 Processing requests. 171.12 Business information. 171.13 Appeal of denial of request for records. 171.14 Fees to be charged. 171.15 Miscellaneous fee provisions. 171.16 Waiver or reduction of fees. 171.17 Resolving disputes. 171.18 Preservation of records. Subpart C—Privacy Act Provisions 171.20 Purpose and scope. 171.21 Definitions. 171.22 Request for access to records. 171.23 Request to amend or correct records. 171.24 Request for an accounting of record disclosures. 171.25 Appeals from denials of PA amendment requests. 171.26 Exemptions. Subpart D—Process To Request Public Financial Disclosure Reports 171.30 Purpose and scope. 171.31 Requests. Authority:

22 U.S.C. 2651a; 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a; E.O. 12600 (52 FR 23781); Pub. L. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. app. 101-505); 5 CFR part 2634.

Subpart A—General Policy and Procedures
§ 171.1 General provisions.

(a) This subpart contains the rules that the Department of State and the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB), an independent body, follow in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, and the Privacy Act of 1974 (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. Records of the Department shall be made available to the public upon request made in compliance with the access procedures established in this part, except for any records exempt by law from disclosure. Regulations at 22 CFR 172.1 through 172.9 govern, inter alia, the service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or requests for official Department information or action, as well as the Department's response to demands or requests for official Department information or action in connection with legal proceedings in the United States to which the Department is not a party.

(b) Definitions. (1) For purposes of subparts A, B, and D of this part, record means information regardless of its physical form or characteristics—including information created, stored, and retrievable by electronic means—that is created or obtained by the Department and under the control of the Department at the time of the request, including information maintained for the Department by an entity under Government contract for records management purposes. It does not include records that are not already in existence and that would have to be created specifically to respond to a request. Information available in electronic form shall be searched and compiled in response to a request unless such search and compilation would significantly interfere with the operation of the Department's automated information systems.

(2) For purposes of subparts A, B, C, and D of this part, Department means the United States Department of State, including its field offices and Foreign Service posts abroad.

§ 171.2 Types of records maintained.

Most of the records maintained by the Department pertain to the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign policy. The Department also maintains certain records that pertain to individuals, such as applications for U.S. passports, applications for visas to enter the United States, records on consular assistance given abroad by U.S. Foreign Service posts to U.S citizens and legal permanent residents, and records on Department employees. Further information on the types of records maintained by the Department may be obtained by reviewing the Department's records disposition schedules, which are available on the Department's Web site at www.foia.state.gov.

§ 171.3 Records available on the Department's Web site.

Information that is required to be published in the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) is regularly updated by the Department and found on its public Web site: www.state.gov. Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection and copying under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) also are available on the Department's public Web site. Included on the Department's FOIA home page, www.foia.state.gov, are links to other sites where Department information may be available, links to the Department's PA systems of records, and the Department's records disposition schedules. Also available on the FOIA Web site are certain records released by the Department pursuant to requests under the FOIA and compilations of records reviewed and released in certain special projects. In addition, see 22 CFR part 173 regarding materials disseminated abroad by the Department.

§ 171.4 Requests for information—types and how made.

(a) Requests for records made in accordance with subparts A, B, and C of this part must be made in writing and may be made by mail addressed to the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS), U.S. Department of State, State Annex 2 (SA-2), 515 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100, or by fax to (202) 261-8579, or through the Department's FOIA Web site (www.foia.state.gov). PA requests may be made by mail or fax only. IPS does not accept requests submitted by email.

(1) Requests for passport records that are covered under PA System of Records Notice 26, including passport records issued from 1925 to present, should be mailed to U.S. Department of State, Law Enforcement Liaison Division, CA/PPT/S/L/LE, 44132 Mercure Cir, P.O. Box 1227, Sterling, VA 20166. Further guidance on obtaining passport records is available on the Department's Web site: travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/services/obtain-copies-of-passport-records.html.

(2) Requests for records of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) may be submitted to U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC 20520-0308, ATTN: FOIA officer. In addition, FOIA requests seeking OIG records may be submitted via email to [email protected], which is preferred. PA requests are accepted by mail only. Guidance is available on the OIG's Web site: oig.state.gov/foia/index.htm.

(3) All other requests for other Department records must be submitted to the Office of Information Programs and Services by one of the means noted above. The Office of Information Programs and Services, the Law Enforcement Liaison Division of the Office of Passport Services, and the OIG are the only Department components authorized to accept FOIA requests submitted to the Department.

(4) Providing the specific citation to the statute under which a requester is requesting information will facilitate the processing of the request by the Department. The Department automatically processes requests for information maintained in a PA system of records under both the FOIA and the PA to provide the requester with the greatest degree of access to the requester. Such information may be withheld only if it is exempt from access under both laws; if the information is exempt under only one of the laws, it must be released.

(b) Although no particular format is required, a request must reasonably describe the Department records that are sought. To the extent that requests are specific and include all pertinent details about the requested information, it will be easier for the Department to locate responsive records. For FOIA requests, such details include the subject, timeframe, names of any individuals involved, a contract number (if applicable), and reasons why the requester believes the Department may have records on the subject of the request.

(c) While every effort is made to guarantee the greatest possible access to all requesters regardless of the statute(s) under which the information is requested, the following guidance is provided for the benefit of requesters:

(1) The Freedom of Information Act applies to requests for records concerning the general activities of government and of the Department in particular (see subpart B of this part).

(2) The Privacy Act applies to requests from U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident aliens for records that pertain to them that are maintained by the Department in a system of records retrievable by the individual's name or personal identifier (see subpart C of this part).

(d) As a general matter, information access requests are processed in the order in which they are received. However, if the request is specific and the search can be narrowed, it may be processed more quickly. Additionally, FOIA requests granted expedited processing will be placed in the expedited processing queue (see § 171.11(f) for more information). Multi-tracking of FOIA requests is also used to manage requests (see § 171.11(h)).

§ 171.5 Archival records.

The Department ordinarily transfers records designated as historically significant to the National Archives when they are 25 years old. Accordingly, requests for some Department records 25 years old or older should be submitted to the National Archives by mail addressed to Special Access and FOIA Staff (NWCTF), 8601 Adelphi Road, Room 5500, College Park, MD 20740; by fax to (301) 837-1864; or by email to [email protected] The Department's Web site, www.foia.state.gov, has additional information regarding archival records.

Subpart B—Freedom of Information Act Provisions
§ 171.10 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains the rules that the Department follows under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. The rules should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about access to records and contains the specific exemptions that are applicable to withholding information, the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Guidelines), and information located at www.foia.state.gov. The Department processes records maintained in a Privacy Act (PA) system of records that are determined to be exempt from disclosure under the PA under the FOIA as well. As a result, requests that seek such records are also subject to this subpart.

§ 171.11 Processing requests.

(a) In general. (1) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS) is responsible for initial action on all FOIA requests for Department records with two exceptions: Requests submitted directly to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), which receives and processes requests for OIG records; and the Office of Passport Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs (PPT), which receives and processes requests for passport records (see § 171.4(a)). Once received by IPS, all requests for records coming under the jurisdiction of the following bureaus or offices are processed by those bureaus, although IPS may provide review and coordination support to these bureaus/offices in some situations: the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Office of Visa Services, Office of Passport Services (except for information identified in § 171.4(a)), and Office of Overseas Citizens Services; the Bureau of Diplomatic Security; the Bureau of Human Resources; the Office of Medical Services; and the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB). Additionally, the FSGB, as an independent body, processes all FOIA requests seeking access to its records and responds directly to requesters.

(2) The Division Chief, Requester Liaison Division, in the Office of Information Programs and Services, shall issue all initial decisions on whether a request is valid or perfected, and whether to grant or deny requests for a fee waiver or for expedited processing.

Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

(1) Control means the Department's legal authority over a record, taking into account the ability of the Department to use and dispose of the record, the intent of the record's creator to retain or relinquish control over the record, the extent to which Department personnel have read or relied upon the record, and the degree to which the record has been integrated into the Department's record-keeping systems or files.

(2) Urgently needed information. The information has a particular value that will be lost if not disseminated quickly. Ordinarily this means a breaking news story of general public interest. Information of historical interest only or information sought for litigation or commercial activities would not generally qualify, nor would a news media publication or broadcast deadline unrelated to the breaking nature of the story.

(3) Actual or alleged Federal government activity. The information concerns actual or alleged actions taken or contemplated by the government of the United States, or by one of its components or agencies, including the Congress.

(4) Unusual circumstances means:

(i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from Foreign Service posts or Department offices other than IPS;

(ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of distinct records; or

(iii) The need to consult with another agency or other agencies that has/have a substantial interest in the records, or among two or more Department components that have a substantial subject-matter interest therein. In the majority of requests received by the Department unusual circumstances exist due to the need to search in multiple bureaus/offices/posts located around the globe.

(c) Form of request and response. A requester may ask for any information he or she believes the Department has in its possession or control. The requester must describe the records sought in sufficient detail to enable Department personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. The more specific the information the requester furnishes, the more likely that Department personnel will be able to locate responsive records if they exist. Any records provided in response to a request shall be provided in the form or format requested if the records are readily reproducible in that form or format.

(d) Agreement to pay fees. By making a FOIA request, the requester shall be considered to have agreed to pay all applicable fees up to $25, unless a fee waiver is granted. IPS will confirm this agreement in an acknowledgement letter. When making a request, the requester may specify a willingness to pay a greater or lesser amount. If the Department determines that costs and fees will exceed the amount agreed to by the requester, the Department shall inform the requester of estimated fees and process up to the amount of the original agreement, unless a new agreement is made.

(e) Receipt of request. The Department is in receipt of a request when it reaches IPS, OIG, or PPT, depending on which office is the intended recipient. At that time, the Department shall send an acknowledgement letter to the requester that identifies the date of receipt of the request in the proper component (IPS, OIG, or PPT), and the case tracking number. The Department (IPS, OIG, or PPT) has 20 working days in which to determine whether to comply with a perfected request. Regardless of which of the three offices authorized to receive FOIA requests receives the request (whether IPS, OIG, or PPT), the Department shall have no more than 10 working days to direct a request to the appropriate office (whether IPS, OIG, or PPT), at which time the 20-day limit for responding to the request will commence. The 20-day period shall not be tolled by the Department except:

(1) The Department may make one request to the requester for clarifying information and toll the 20-day period while waiting for the requester's response; or

(2) If necessary to clarify with the requester issues regarding fees. In either case, the Department's receipt of the information from the requester ends the tolling period.

(f) Expedited processing. Requests shall receive expedited processing when a requester demonstrates that a “compelling need” for the information exists. A “compelling need” is deemed to exist where the requester can demonstrate one of the following:

(1) Failure to obtain requested information on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual.

(2) The information is urgently needed by an individual primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal government activity. Requesters must demonstrate that their primary activity involves publishing or otherwise disseminating information to the public in general, not just to a particular segment or group.

(3) Failure to release the information would impair substantial due process rights or harm substantial humanitarian interests.

(4) A request for expedited processing may be made at the time of the initial request for records or at any later time. The request for expedited processing shall set forth with specificity the facts on which the request is based. A notice of the determination whether to grant expedited processing shall be provided to the requester within 10 calendar days of the date of the receipt of the request in the appropriate office (whether IPS, OIG, or PPT). A denial of a request for expedited processing may be appealed to the Director of IPS within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's letter denying the request. A decision in writing on the appeal will be issued within 10 calendar days of the receipt of the appeal. See § 171.4 for contact information.

(g) Time limits. The statutory time limit for responding to a FOIA request or to an appeal from a denial of a FOIA request is 20 working days. Whenever the statutory time limit for processing a request cannot be met because of “unusual circumstances” as defined in the FOIA, and the Department extends the time limit on that basis, the Department shall, before expiration of the 20-day period to respond, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances involved and of the date by which processing of the request can be expected to be completed. See § 171.11(b)(4). Where the extension exceeds 10 working days, the Department shall, as described by the FOIA, provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the request or arrange an alternative time period for processing. The Department shall make available its designated FOIA contact and its FOIA Public Liaison for this purpose.

(h) Multi-track processing. The Department uses three processing tracks by distinguishing between simple and more complex requests based on the amount of work and/or time needed to process the request. The Department also uses a processing track for requests in which the Department has granted expedited processing. The Department may provide requesters in a slower track an opportunity to limit the scope of their request in order to qualify for faster processing.

(i) Tracking requests. Requesters may contact IPS using the individualized tracking number provided to the requester in the acknowledgment letter, and the Department will provide, at a minimum, information indicating the date on which the agency received the request and an estimated date for completion.

(j) Cut-off date. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Department ordinarily will include only records in its possession as of the date of initiation of the search for responsive records, unless the requester has specified an earlier cut-off date.

(k) Electronic records. Information maintained in electronic form shall be searched and compiled in response to a request unless such search and compilation would significantly interfere with the operation of the Department's automated information systems.

(l) Segregation of records. The Department will release any reasonably segregable portion of a record after redaction of the exempt portions. The amount of information redacted and the exemption under which the redaction is made shall be indicated on the released portion of the record unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption. If technically feasible, the amount of information redacted and the exemption under which the redaction is made shall be indicated at the place in the record where the redaction was made.

(m) Referrals and consultations. (1) If the Department determines that records retrieved as responsive to the request were created by another agency, it ordinarily will refer the records to the originating agency for direct response to the requester. If the Department determines that Department records retrieved as responsive to the request are of interest to another agency or Federal government office, it may consult with the other agency or office before responding to the request.

(2) Whenever the Department refers any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, it shall document the referral, maintain a copy of the record that it refers, and notify the requester of the referral.

(3) Agreements regarding consultations and referrals. The Department may make agreements with other agencies to eliminate the need for consultations or referrals for particular types of records.

(4) The Department will make efforts to handle referrals and consultations according to the date that the referring agency initially received the FOIA request.

(5) The standard referral procedure is not appropriate where disclosure of the identity of the agency to which the referral would be made could harm an interest protected by an applicable exemption, such as the exemptions that protect personal privacy or national security interests. In such instances, the Department will coordinate with the originating agency to seek its views on the disclosability of the record(s).

(n) Requests for information about individuals to be processed under the FOIA—(1) First-party requests. A first-party request is one that seeks access to information pertaining to the person making the request.

(2) Verification of personal identity. To protect the personal information found in its files, the Department recommends that first-party requesters provide the following information so that the Department can ensure that records are disclosed only to the proper persons: the requester's full name, current address, citizenship or legal permanent resident alien status, and date and place of birth (city, state, and country). A first-party request should be signed, and the requester's signature should be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 as a substitute for notarization.

(3) Third-party requests. A third-party request is one that seeks access to information pertaining to a third party (i.e., an individual other than the person submitting the request). A third-party requester who is the legal representative of another person covered under the PA, and submits all requirements under subpart C of this part, will be treated as a first-party requester.

(i) A third-party requester may receive greater access to requested information by submitting information about the subject of the request that is set forth in paragraph (n)(1) of this section, and providing proof that that third party is deceased or the third party's authorization to the Department to release information about him- or herself to the requester. The third-party authorization: should take one of the following forms:

(ii) A signed and notarized authorization by the third party; or

(iii) A declaration by the third party made in compliance with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1746 authorizing disclosure pertaining to the third party to the requester. The third-party authorization or declaration should be dated within six months of the date of the request. In addition, the Department's Certification of Identity form, DS-4240, can be used to provide authorization from a third party.

(iv) Please note that if a requester is seeking information about a third party and the information is located in a PA system of records, the requester should review subpart C of this part. By providing verification of identity and authorization under that subpart, the third party is treated as a first party for processing purposes. Without providing the required information listed in that subpart, the request will still be processed under the FOIA procedures in subpart B of this part.

(4) Requests for visa information. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 222(f) (8 U.S.C. 1202(f)), the records of the Department of State and of diplomatic and consular offices of the United States pertaining to the issuance or refusal of visas or permits to enter the United States shall be considered confidential and shall be used only for the formulation, amendment, administration, or enforcement of the immigration, nationality, and other laws of the United States. Other information found in the visa file, such as information submitted as part of the application and information not falling within section 222(f) or another FOIA exemption may be provided. In order to provide more information to requesters seeking visa records, the following information should be provided with the FOIA request for both the petitioner and the beneficiary: full name, as well as any aliases used; current address; date and place of birth (including city, state, and country); the type of visa (immigrant or non-immigrant); the country and Foreign Service post where the visa application was made; when the visa application was made; and whether the visa application was granted or denied; and if denied, on what grounds. Providing additional information regarding the records sought will assist the Department in properly identifying the responsive records and in processing the request. In order to gain maximum access to any visa records that exist, attorneys or other legal representatives requesting visa information on behalf of a represented individual should submit a statement signed by both the petitioner and the beneficiary authorizing release of the requested visa information to the representative. Alternatively, the Department's form, DS-4240, may be used to certify the identity of the requester and to provide authorization from the petitioner and the beneficiary to release the requested information to the legal representative. Forms created by other Federal agencies will not be accepted.

(5) Requests for passport records. All passport records requests must meet the requirements found in § 171.22(d). If the PA requirements are not met, the requests will be processed under this subpart and access may be limited.

§ 171.12 Business information.

(a) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

(1) Business information means commercial or financial or proprietary intellectual information obtained by the Department from a submitter that may be exempt from disclosure as privileged or confidential under Exemption 4 of the FOIA.

(2) Submitter means any person or entity from which the Department obtains business information, directly or indirectly. The term includes corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships; state, local, and tribal governments; foreign governments, NGOs and educational institutions.

(b) Designation of business information. A submitter of information must use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of its submission that it considers exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4. These designations will expire ten years after the date of the submission unless the submitter requests, and provides justification for, a longer designation period.

(c) Notice to submitters. The Department shall provide a submitter with prompt written notice of a FOIA request that seeks its business information, or of an administrative appeal of a denial of such a request, whenever required under paragraph (d) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, in order to give the submitter an opportunity to object to disclosure of any specified portion of that information under paragraph (f) of this section. The notice shall either describe the information requested or include copies of the requested records or record portions containing the business information.

(d) When notice is required. Notice shall be given to a submitter whenever:

(1) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4; or

(2) The Department has reason to believe that the information may be exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4, but has not yet determined whether the information is protected from disclosure under that exemption or any other applicable exemption.

(e) When notice is not required. The notice requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section shall not apply if:

(1) The Department determines that the information is exempt from disclosure;

(2) The information lawfully has been published or has been officially made available to the public;

(3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600; or

(4) The designation made by the submitter under paragraph (b) of this section appears obviously frivolous, except that, in such a case, the Department shall, within a reasonable time prior to a specified disclosure date, give the submitter written notice of any final decision to disclose the information.

(f) Opportunity to object to disclosure. The Department will allow a submitter a reasonable time to respond to the notice described in paragraph (c) of this section and will specify that time period in the notice. If a submitter has any objections to disclosure, it should provide the component a detailed written statement that specifies all grounds for withholding the particular information under any exemption of the FOIA. In order to rely on Exemption 4 as basis for nondisclosure, the submitter must explain why the information constitutes a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. In the event that a submitter fails to respond to the notice within the time specified in it, the submitter will be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. Information provided by a submitter under this paragraph may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

(g) Notice of intent to disclose. The Department shall consider a submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure in deciding whether to disclose business information. Whenever the Department decides to disclose business information over the objection of a submitter, it shall give the submitter written notice, which shall include:

(1) A statement of the reason(s) why each of the submitter's disclosure objections was not sustained;

(2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and

(3) A specified disclosure date, which shall be a reasonable time subsequent to the notice.

(h) Notice of lawsuit. Whenever a requester files a lawsuit seeking to compel the disclosure of business information, the Department shall promptly notify the submitter.

(i) Notice to requester. Whenever the Department provides a submitter with notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure under paragraph (f) of this section, the Department shall also notify the requester. Whenever the Department notifies a submitter of its intent to disclose requested business information under paragraph (g) of this section, the Department shall also notify the requester. Whenever a submitter files a lawsuit seeking to prevent the disclosure of business information, the Department shall notify the requester.

§ 171.13 Appeal of denial of request for records.

(a) Any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for Department records under the FOIA may be administratively appealed to the Appeals Review Panel of the Department. This appeal right includes the right to appeal the determination that no records responsive to the request exist in Department files. Appeals must be postmarked within 60 calendar days of the date of the Department's denial letter and sent to: Appeals Officer, Appeals Review Panel, Office of Information Programs and Services, at the address set forth in § 171.4, or faxed to (202) 261-8571. The time limit for a response to an appeal is 20 working days, which may be extended in unusual circumstances, as defined in § 171.11(b). The time limit begins to run on the day the appeal is received by IPS. Appeals from denials of requests for expedited processing and for a fee reduction or waiver must be postmarked within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's denial letter. See §§ 171.11(f)(4) (expedited processing appeals) and 171.16(e) (fee reduction/waiver appeals) of this subpart. See also § 171.4 for address information.

(b) Requesters may decide to litigate a request that is in the appeal stage. Once a summons and complaint is received by the Department in connection with a particular request, the Department will administratively close any open appeal regarding such request.

(c) Requesters should submit an administrative appeal, to IPS at the above address, of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to FSGB records under the FOIA. IPS will assign a tracking number to the appeal and forward it to the FSGB, which is an independent body, for adjudication.

(d) Decisions on appeals. A decision on an appeal must be made in writing. A decision that upholds the Department's determination will contain a statement that identifies the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA and Privacy Act exemptions applied. The decision will provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the mediation services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS) as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If the Department's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the requester will be notified of that determination in writing. The Department will thereafter further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and respond directly to the requester. When the Department of State engages in the mediation services offered by OGIS, it will work in good faith as a partner to the mediation process in an attempt to resolve the dispute. The Department reserves its right to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to enter into formal mediation offered by OGIS.

§ 171.14 Fees to be charged.

(a) In general. The Department shall charge fees that recoup the full allowable direct costs it incurs in processing a FOIA request in accordance with the provisions of this part and with the OMB Guidelines. It shall use the most efficient and least costly methods to comply with requests for records made under the FOIA. The Department will not charge fees to any requester, including commercial use requesters, if the cost of collecting a fee would be equal to or greater than $25.00. The Department shall attempt to notify the requester if fees are estimated to exceed $25.00. Such notification shall include a breakdown of the fees for search, review, or duplication, unless the requester has expressed a willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated.

(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

(1) Direct costs are those costs the Department incurs in searching for, duplicating, and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing records in response to a FOIA request. The term does not include overhead expenses.

(2) Search costs are those costs the Department incurs in looking for, identifying, and retrieving material, in paper or electronic form, that is potentially responsive to a request. The Department shall attempt to ensure that searching for material is done in the most efficient and least expensive manner so as to minimize costs for both the Department and the requester. The Department may charge for time spent searching even if it does not locate any responsive record, or if it withholds the record(s) located as entirely exempt from disclosure. Further information on current search fees is available by visiting the FOIA home page at www.foia.state.gov and reviewing the Information Access Guide.

(3) Duplication costs are those costs the Department incurs in reproducing a requested record in a form appropriate for release in response to a FOIA request.

(4) Review costs are those costs the Department incurs in examining a record to determine whether and to what extent the record is responsive to a FOIA request and the extent to which it may be disclosed to the requester, including the page-by-page or line-by-line review of material within records. It does not include the costs of resolving general legal or policy issues that may be raised by a request.

(5) Categories of requesters. ”Requester fee category” means one of the categories in which a requester will be placed for the purpose of determining whether the requester will be charged fees for search, review, and duplication. “Fee waiver” (see § 171.16) means the waiver or reduction of processing fees that may be granted if the requester can demonstrate that certain statutory standards are satisfied. There are three categories of requesters: commercial use requesters, distinct subcategories of non-commercial requesters (educational and non-commercial scientific institutions, representatives of the news media), and all other requesters.

(i) A commercial use requester is a person or entity who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interest of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is made. In determining whether a requester belongs within this category, the Department will look at the way in which the requester intends to use the information requested. Commercial use requesters will be charged for search time, review time, and duplication in connection with processing their requests.

(ii) Distinct subcategories of non-commercial requesters. (A) An educational institution requester is a person or entity who submits a request under the authority of a school that operates a program of scholarly research. A requester in this category must show that the records are not sought for a commercial use and are not intended to promote any particular product or industry, but rather are sought to further scholarly research of the institution. A signed letter from the chairperson on an institution's letterhead is presumed to be from an educational institution. A student seeking inclusion in this subcategory who makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction is carrying out an individual research goal and does not qualify as an educational institution requester. See a summary of the OMB Fee Guidelines at: https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-fees-and-fee-waivers. Educational institution requesters will not be charged for search and review time, and the first 100 pages of duplication will be provided free of charge.

(1) Example 1.

A request from a professor of geology at a university for records relating to soil erosion, written on letterhead of the Department of Geology, would be presumed to be from an educational institution.

(2) Example 2.

A request from the same professor of geology seeking drug information from the Food and Drug Administration in furtherance of a murder mystery he is writing would not be presumed to be an institutional request, regardless of whether it was written on institutional stationery.

(B) A non-commercial scientific institution requester is a person or entity that submits a request on behalf of an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis and that is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry. Non-commercial scientific institution requesters will not be charged for search and review time, and the first 100 pages of duplication will be provided free of charge.

(C) A representative of the news media is any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. The term news means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. News media include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only in those instances when they can qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available to the general public. “Freelance” journalists shall be regarded as working for a news media entity if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, such as by a contract or past publication record. These examples are not all-inclusive. A representative of the news media will not be charged for search and review time, and the first 100 pages of duplication will be provided free of charge.

(iii) All other requesters are persons or entities that do not fall into the requester categories defined above. All other requesters will be provided the first two hours of search time and the first 100 pages of duplication free of charge, and will not be charged for review time.

(c) Searches for responsive records. The Department charges the estimated direct cost of each search based on the average current salary rates of the categories of personnel doing the searches. Updated search and review fees are available at www.foia.state.gov

(d) Manual (paper) and computer searches. For both manual and computer searches, the Department shall charge the estimated direct cost of each search based on the average current salary rates of the categories of personnel doing the searches.

(e) Review of records. Only requesters who are seeking records for commercial use may be charged for time spent reviewing records to determine whether they are responsive, and if so, releasable. Charges may be assessed for the initial review only, i.e., the review undertaken the first time the Department analyzes the applicability of a specific exemption to a particular record or portion of a record

(f) Duplication of records. Paper copies of records shall be duplicated at a rate of $0.15 per page. Other charges may apply depending on the type of production required. Where paper documents must be scanned in order to comply with a requester's preference to receive the records in an electronic format, the requester shall pay the direct costs associated with scanning those materials. For other forms of duplication, the Department shall charge the direct costs.

(g) Other charges. The Department shall recover the full costs of providing services such as those below:

(1) Sending records by special methods such as express mail, overnight courier, etc.

(2) Providing records to a requester in a special format.

(3) Providing duplicate copies of records already produced to the same requester in response to the same request.

(h) Payment. Fees shall be paid by either personal check or bank draft drawn on a bank in the United States, or a postal money order. Remittances shall be made payable to the order of the Treasury of the United States and mailed to the Office of Information Programs and Services, U.S. Department of State, State Annex 2 (SA-2), 515 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC, 20522-8100. A receipt for fees paid will be given upon request.

(i) When certain fees are not charged. The Department shall not charge search fees (or in the case of educational and non-commercial scientific institutions or representatives of the news media, duplication fees) when the Department fails to comply with any time limit under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6), unless unusual circumstances (see § 171.11(b)) or exceptional circumstances exist. Exceptional circumstances cannot include a delay that results from a predictable agency workload of requests unless the agency demonstrates reasonable progress in reducing its backlog of pending requests. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C). Apart from the stated provisions regarding waiver or reduction of fees, see § 171.16, the Department retains the administrative discretion to not assess fees if it is in the best interests of the government to do so.

§ 171.15 Miscellaneous fee provisions.

(a) Charging interest. The Department shall begin assessing interest charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the day on which the bill was sent. The fact that a fee has been received by the Department within the thirty-day grace period, even if not processed, shall stay the accrual of interest. Interest will be at the rate prescribed in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and shall accrue from the date of the billing.

(b) Charges for unsuccessful search or if records are withheld. The Department may assess charges for time spent searching, even if it fails to locate the records or if the records located are determined to be exempt from disclosure.

(c) Advance payment. The Department may not require a requester to make an advance payment, i.e., payment before work is commenced or continued on a request, unless:

(1) It estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250. In such a case, the Department shall notify the requester of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment where the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees, or shall, in its discretion, require an advance payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in the case of requesters with no history of payment; or

(2) A requester has previously failed to pay an assessed fee within 30 days of the date of its billing. In such a case, the Department shall require the requester to pay the full amount previously owed plus any applicable interest and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Department begins to process a new or pending request from that requester.

(3) If a requester has failed to pay a fee properly charged by another U.S. government agency in a FOIA case, the Department may require proof that such fee has been paid before processing a new or pending request from that requester.

(4) When the Department acts under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, the administrative time limits prescribed in the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6) (i.e., 20 working days from receipt of initial requests and 20 working days from receipt of appeals, plus permissible extensions of these time limits), will begin only after the Department has received fee payments described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(d) Aggregating requests. When the Department reasonably believes that a requester, or a group of requesters acting in concert, has submitted multiple requests involving related matters solely to avoid payment of fees, the Department may aggregate those requests for purposes of assessing processing fees.

(e) Effect of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended. The Department shall comply with provisions of the Debt Collection Act, including disclosure to consumer reporting agencies and use of collection agencies, where appropriate, to effect repayment.

(f) Itemization of charges. The Department shall, where possible, provide the requester with a breakdown of fees charged indicating how much of the total charge is for search, review, and/or duplication for each specific request.

§ 171.16 Waiver or reduction of fees.

(a) Fees otherwise chargeable in connection with a request for disclosure of a record shall be waived or reduced where the requester seeks a waiver or reduction of fees and the Department determines, in its discretion, that disclosure is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

(1) In deciding whether disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations or activities of the government, the Department shall consider all four of the following factors:

(i) The subject of the request must concern identifiable operations or activities of the Federal Government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated.

(ii) Disclosure of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either the same or a substantially identical form, would not contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding.

(iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area as well as the requester's ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

(iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

(2) In order to determine whether disclosure of the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Department will consider the following factors:

(i) The existence and magnitude of a commercial interest, i.e., whether the requester has a commercial interest that would be furthered by the requested disclosure; and, if so,

(ii) The primary interest in disclosure, i.e., whether disclosure is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

(iii) Requests for purposes of writing a book, an article, or other publication will not be considered a commercial purpose.

(b) The Department may refuse to consider waiver or reduction of fees for requesters from whom unpaid fees remain owed to the Department for another FOIA request.

(c) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver or reduction of fees, a waiver or reduction shall be granted for only those records.

(d) Requests for a waiver or reduction of fees should be made when the request is first submitted to the Department and should address the criteria referenced above. A requester may submit a fee waiver request at a later time so long as the underlying record request is pending or on administrative appeal. When a requester who has committed to pay fees subsequently asks for a waiver of those fees and that waiver is denied, the requester shall be required to pay any costs incurred up to the date the fee waiver request was received.

(e) The Division Chief of the Requester Liaison Division in IPS will issue all initial decisions on whether to grant or deny requests for a fee waiver. A decision to refuse to waive or reduce fees may be appealed to the Director of IPS within 30 calendar days of the date of the Department's refusal letter. See § 171.4 for address information. A decision in writing on the appeal shall be issued within 20 working days of the receipt of the appeal.

§ 171.17 Resolving disputes.

The Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in the National Archives and Records Administration is charged with offering mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Additionally, the FOIA directs the Department's FOIA Public Liaison to assist in the resolution of disputes. The Department will inform requesters in its agency appeal response letter of services offered by OGIS and the FOIA Public Liaison. Requesters may reach the Department's FOIA Public Liaison at Office of Information Programs and Services, A/GIS/IPS/PP/LA, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-8100, or at (202) 261-8484. Requesters may contact OGIS at Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001; at [email protected]; and at (202) 741-5770, or toll-free at (877) 684-6448.

§ 171.18 Preservation of records

The Department shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records shall not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.

Subpart C—Privacy Act Provisions
§ 171.20 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains the rules that the Department follows under the Privacy Act of 1974 (PA), 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended. These rules should be read together with the text of the statute, which provides additional information about records maintained on individuals. The rules in this subpart apply to all records in systems of records maintained by the Department that are retrieved by an individual's name or personal identifier. They describe the procedures by which individuals may request access to records about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of those records by the Department. If any records retrieved pursuant to an access request under the PA are found to be exempt from access under that Act, they will be processed for possible disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. No fees shall be charged for access to or amendment of PA records.

§ 171.21 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) Individual means a citizen or a legal permanent resident alien (LPR) of the United States.

(b) Maintain includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.

(c) Record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Department and that contains the individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or photograph.

(d) System of records means a group of any records under the control of the Department from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to an individual.

§ 171.22 Request for access to records.

(a) In general. Requests for access to records under the PA must be made in writing and mailed to the Office of Information Programs and Service, the Office of Passport Services, or the Office of Inspector General at the addresses given in § 171.4. The Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS) is responsible for acting on all PA requests for Department records except for requests received directly by the Office of Inspector General, which processes its own requests for information, and the Office of Passport Services within the Bureau of Consular Affairs which receives directly and processes its own PA requests for information as described in PA System of Record Notice 26. Once received by IPS, all processing of PA requests coming under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Consular Affairs/Visa Services Office and Overseas Citizens Services, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of Medical Services, and the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB) are handled by those bureaus or offices instead of IPS.

(b) Description of records sought. Requests for access should describe the requested record(s) in sufficient detail to permit identification of the record(s). At a minimum, requests should include the individual's full name (including maiden name, if appropriate) and any other names used, current complete mailing address, and date and place of birth (city, state and country). Helpful data includes the approximate time period of the record and the circumstances that give the individual reason to believe that the Department maintains a record under the individual's name or personal identifier, and, if known, the system of records in which the record is maintained. In certain instances, it may be necessary for the Department to request additional information from the requester, either to ensure a full search, or to ensure that a record retrieved does in fact pertain to the individual.

(c) Verification of personal identity. The Department will require reasonable identification of individuals requesting records about themselves under the PA's access provisions to ensure that records are only accessed by the proper persons. Requesters must state their full name, current address, citizenship or legal permanent resident alien status, and date and place of birth (city, state, and country). The request must be signed, and the requester's signature must be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. If the requester seeks records under another name the requester has used, a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the requester has also used the other name must be included. Requesters seeking access to copies of the Passport Office's passport records must meet the requirements in paragraph (d) of this section.

(d) Special requirements for passport records. Given the sensitive nature of passport records and their use, requesters seeking access to copies of the Passport Office's passport records under the PA must submit a letter that is either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, which includes the full name at birth and any subsequent name changes of the individual whose records are being requested (if submitting the request on behalf of a minor, provide the representative's full name as well); the date and place of birth of the individual whose records are being requested; the requester's current mailing address; and, if available, daytime telephone number and email address; the date or estimated date the passport(s) was issued; the passport number of the person whose records are being sought, if known; and any other information that will help to locate the records. The requester must also include a clear copy of both sides of the requester's valid Government-issued photo identification, e.g., a driver's license.

(e) Authorized third party access. The Department shall process all properly authorized third party requests, as described in this section, under the PA. In the absence of proper authorization from the individual to whom the records pertain, the Department will process third party requests under the FOIA. The Department's form, DS-4240, may be used to certify identity and provide third party authorization.

(1) Parents and guardians of minor children. Upon presentation of acceptable documentation of the parental or guardian relationship, a parent or guardian of a U.S. citizen or LPR minor (an unmarried person under the age of 18) may, on behalf of the minor, request records under the PA pertaining to the minor. In any case, U.S. citizen or LPR minors may request such records on their own behalf.

(2) Guardians. A guardian of an individual who has been declared by a court to be incompetent may act for and on behalf of the incompetent individual upon presentation of appropriate documentation of the guardian relationship.

(3) Authorized representatives or designees. When an individual wishes to authorize another person or persons access to his or her records, the individual may submit, in addition to the identity verification information described in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of this section if the request is for passport records, a signed statement from the individual to whom the records pertain, either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, giving the Department authorization to release records about the individual to the third party. The designated third party must submit identity verification information described in paragraph c. Third party requesters seeking access to copies of the Passport Office's records must submit a clear copy of both sides of a valid Government-issued photo identification (e.g., a driver's license) in addition to the other information described above.

(f) Referrals and consultations. If the Department determines that records retrieved as responsive to the request were created by another agency, it ordinarily will refer the records to the originating agency for direct response to the requester. If the Department determines that Department records retrieved as responsive to the request are of interest to another agency, it may consult with the other agency before responding to the request. The Department may make agreements with other agencies to eliminate the need for consultations or referrals for particular types of records.

(g) Records relating to civil actions. Nothing in this subpart entitles an individual to access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.

(h) Time limits. The Department will acknowledge the request promptly and furnish the requested information as soon as possible thereafter.

§ 171.23 Request to amend or correct records.

(a) An individual has the right to request that the Department amend a record pertaining to the individual that the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.

(b) Requests to amend records must be in writing and mailed or delivered to the Office of Information Programs and Services at the address given in § 171.4, with ATTENTION: PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT REQUEST written on the envelope. IPS will coordinate the review of the request with the appropriate offices of the Department. The Department will require verification of personal identity as provided in section 171.22(c) before it will initiate action to amend a record. Amendment requests should contain, at a minimum, identifying information needed to locate the record in question, a description of the specific correction requested, and an explanation of why the existing record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request must be signed, and the requester's signature must be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. The requester should submit as much pertinent documentation, other information, and explanation as possible to support the request for amendment.

(c) All requests for amendments to records shall be acknowledged within 10 working days.

(d) In reviewing a record in response to a request to amend, the Department shall review the record to determine if it is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.

(e) If the Department agrees with an individual's request to amend a record, it shall:

(1) Advise the individual in writing of its decision;

(2) Amend the record accordingly; and

(3) If an accounting of disclosure has been made, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance.

(f) If the Department denies an individual's request to amend a record, it shall advise the individual in writing of its decision and the reason for the refusal, and the procedures for the individual to request further review. See § 171.25.

§ 171.24 Request for an accounting of record disclosures.

(a) How made. Except where accountings of disclosures are not required to be kept, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, or where accountings of disclosures do not need to be provided to a requesting individual pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), an individual has a right to request an accounting of any disclosure that the Department has made to another person, organization, or agency of any record about an individual. This accounting shall contain the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure as well as the name and address of the recipient of the disclosure. Any request for accounting should identify each particular record in question and may be made by writing directly to the Office of Information Programs and Services at the address given in § 171.4.

(b) Where accountings not required. The Department is not required to keep an accounting of disclosures in the case of:

(1) Disclosures made to employees within the Department who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties; and

(2) Disclosures required under the FOIA.

§ 171.25 Appeals from denials of PA amendment requests.

(a) If the Department denies a request for amendment of such records, the requester shall be informed of the reason for the denial and of the right to appeal the denial to the Appeals Review Panel. Any such appeal must be postmarked within 60 working days of the date of the Department's denial letter and sent to: Appeals Officer, Appeals Review Panel, Office of Information Programs and Services, at the address set forth in § 171.4.

(b) Appellants should submit an administrative appeal of any denial, in whole or in part, of a request for access to FSGB records under the PA to IPS at the above address. IPS will assign a tracking number to the appeal and forward it to the FSGB, which is an independent body, for adjudication.

(c) The Appeals Review Panel will decide appeals from denials of PA amendment requests within 30 business days, unless the Panel extends that period for good cause shown, from the date when it is received by the Panel.

(d) Appeals Review Panel Decisions will be made in writing, and appellants will receive notification of the decision. A reversal will result in reprocessing of the request in accordance with that decision. An affirmance will include a brief statement of the reason for the affirmance and will inform the appellant that the decision of the Panel represents the final decision of the Department and of the right to seek judicial review of the Panel's decision, when applicable.

(e) If the Panel's decision is that a record shall be amended in accordance with the appellant's request, the Chairman shall direct the office responsible for the record to amend the record, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance (if an accounting of previous disclosures has been made), and so advise the individual in writing.

(f) If the Panel's decision is that the amendment request is denied, in addition to the notification required by paragraph (d) of this section, the Chairman shall advise the appellant:

(1) Of the right to file a concise Statement of Disagreement stating the reasons for disagreement with the decision of the Department;

(2) Of the procedures for filing the Statement of Disagreement;

(3) That any Statement of Disagreement that is filed will be made available to anyone to whom the record is subsequently disclosed, together with, at the discretion of the Department, a brief statement by the Department summarizing its reasons for refusing to amend the record;

(4) That prior recipients of the disputed record will be provided a copy of any statement of disagreement, to the extent that an accounting of disclosures was maintained.

(g) If the appellant files a Statement of Disagreement under paragraph (f) of this section, the Department will clearly annotate the record so that the fact that the record is disputed is apparent to anyone who may subsequently access the record. When the disputed record is subsequently disclosed, the Department will note the dispute and provide a copy of the Statement of Disagreement. The Department may also include a brief summary of the reasons for not amending the record. Copies of the Department's statement shall be treated as part of the individual's record for granting access; however, it will not be subject to amendment by an individual under this part.

§ 171.26 Exemptions.

Systems of records maintained by the Department are authorized to be exempt from certain provisions of the PA under both general and specific exemptions set forth in the Act. In utilizing these exemptions, the Department is exempting only those portions of systems that are necessary for the proper functioning of the Department and that are consistent with the PA. Where compliance would not interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement process, and/or where it may be appropriate to permit individuals to contest the accuracy of the information collected, the applicable exemption may be waived, either partially or totally, by the Department or the OIG, in the sole discretion of the Department or the OIG, as appropriate. Records exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by the originator of the record remain exempt if subsequently incorporated into any Department system of records, provided the reason for the exemption remains valid and necessary.

(a) General exemptions. If exempt records are the subject of an access request, the Department will advise the requester of their existence and of the name and address of the source agency, unless that information is itself exempt from disclosure.

(1) Individuals may not have access to records maintained by the Department that are maintained or originated by the Central Intelligence Agency under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(1).

(2) In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), individuals may not have access to records maintained or originated by an agency or component thereof that performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of:

(i) Information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status;

(ii) Information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or

(iii) Reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. The reason for invoking these exemptions is to ensure effective criminal law enforcement processes. Records maintained by the Department in the following systems of records are exempt from all of the provisions of the PA except paragraphs (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(9), (e)(10), and (e)(11), and (i), to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. The names of the systems correspond to those published in the Federal Register by the Department.

Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.

Information Access Program Records. STATE-35.

Risk Analysis and Management. STATE-78.

Security Records. STATE-36.

(b) Specific exemptions. Portions of the following systems of records are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), and (4), (G), (H), and (I), and (f). The names of the systems correspond to those published in the Federal Register by the Department.

(1) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they are subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1).

Board of Appellate Review Records. STATE-02.

Congressional Correspondence. STATE-43.

Congressional Travel Records. STATE-44.

Coordinator for the Combating of Terrorism Records. STATE-06.

External Research Records. STATE-10.

Extradition Records. STATE-11.

Family Advocacy Case Records. STATE-75.

Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.

Human Resources Records. STATE-31.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.

International Organizations Records. STATE-17.

Law of the Sea Records. STATE-19.

Legal Case Management Records. STATE-21.

Munitions Control Records. STATE-42.

Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.

Passport Records. STATE-26.

Personality Cross Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.

Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.

Personnel Payroll Records. STATE-30.

Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.

Records of the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes. STATE-54.

Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.

Rover Records. STATE-41.

Records of Domestic Accounts Receivable. STATE-23.

Records of the Office of White House Liaison. STATE-34.

Refugee Records. STATE-59.

Security Records. STATE-36.

Visa Records. STATE-39.

(2) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they consist of investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, subject to the limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

Board of Appellate Review Records. STATE-02.

Coordinator for the Combating of Terrorism Records. STATE-06.

Extradition Records. STATE-11.

Family Advocacy Case Records. STATE-75

Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.

Garnishment of Wages Records. STATE-61.

Information Access Program Records. STATE-35.

Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.

Munitions Control Records. STATE-42.

Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.

Passport Records. STATE-26.

Personality Cross Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.

Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.

Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.

Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.

Security Records. STATE-36.

Visa Records. STATE-39.

(3) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(3). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they are maintained in connection with providing protective services pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056.

Extradition Records. STATE-11.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Intelligence and Research Records. STATE-15.

Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-05.

Passport Records. STATE-26.

Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.

Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.

Security Records. STATE-36.

Visa Records. STATE-39.

(4) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they are required by statute to be maintained and are used solely as statistical records.

Foreign Service Institute Records. STATE-14.

Human Resources Records. STATE-31.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Overseas Citizens Services Records, STATE-05

Personnel Payroll Records. STATE-30.

Security Records. STATE-36.

(5) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they consist of investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a confidential informant.

Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights. STATE-09.

Foreign Assistance Inspection Records. STATE-48.

Foreign Service Grievance Board Records. STATE-13.

Human Resources Records. STATE-31.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Legal Adviser Attorney Employment Application Records. STATE-20.

Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-25.

Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.

Office of Inspector General Investigation Management System. STATE-53.

Records of the Office of White House Liaison. STATE-34.

Risk Analysis and Management Records. STATE-78.

Rover Records. STATE-41.

Security Records. STATE-36.

Senior Personnel Appointments Records. STATE-47.

(6) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(6). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they consist of testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process.

Foreign Service Institute Records. STATE-14.

Human Resources Records. STATE-31.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Records Maintained by the Office of Civil Rights. STATE-09

Security Records. STATE-36.

(7) Exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(7). Records contained within the following systems of records are exempt under this section to the extent that they consist of evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, but only to the extent that such disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential informant.

Overseas Citizens Services Records. STATE-25.

Human Resources Records. STATE-31.

Information Access Programs Records. STATE-35.

Personality Cross-Reference Index to the Secretariat Automated Data Index. STATE-28.

Personality Index to the Central Foreign Policy Records. STATE-29.

Subpart D—Process To Request Public Financial Disclosure Reports
§ 171.30 Purpose and scope.

This subpart sets forth the process by which persons may request access to public financial disclosure reports filed with the Department in accordance with sections 101 and 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 101 and 103(l), as amended. The retention, public availability, and improper use of these reports are governed by 5 U.S.C. app. 105 and 5 CFR 2634.603.

§ 171.31 Requests.

Requests for access to public financial disclosure reports filed with the Department should be made by submitting a completed Office of Government Ethics request form, OGE Form 201, to [email protected] or the Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Ethics and Financial Disclosure, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520. The OGE Form 201 may be obtained by visiting http://www.oge.gov or writing to the address above.

Dated: March 30, 2016. Joyce A. Barr, Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-07900 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 169 [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] RIN 1076-AF20 Rights-of-Way on Indian Land AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule; guidance on applicability.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) published a final rule on November 19, 2015, governing rights-of-way on Indian land, which stated that procedural provisions of the final rule would apply (with certain exceptions) to rights-of-way granted or submitted to BIA prior to the effective date of the final rule. This document provides guidance on what provisions the Department considers to be “procedural provisions” that are applicable to rights-of-way granted or submitted prior to the effective date of the final rule.

DATES:

This guidance is effective on April 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior (202) 273-4680; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On November 19, 2015, BIA published a final rule addressing rights-of-way on Indian land and BIA land. See 80 FR 72492. In a document published December 21, 2015, BIA extended the effective date of the rule to March 21, 2016, in response to requests from Tribes and industry. See 80 FR 79258. BIA again extended the effective date of the final rule to April 21, 2016. See 81 FR 14976 (March 21, 2016).

In § 169.7(b), the final rule states that its procedural provisions apply to rights-of-way that were granted prior to the final rule's effective date (with certain exceptions). Likewise, in § 169.7(c)(2), the final rule states that if an application for a right-of-way was pending as of the effective date of the final rule, and the applicant chose not to withdraw and resubmit the application on or after the final rule's effective date, the procedural provisions of the final rule apply (with certain exceptions) once BIA issues the right-of-way grant. In either situation, if the procedural provisions of the final rule conflict with the explicit provisions of the right-of-way grant or statute authorizing the right-of-way document, then the provisions of the right-of-way grant or authorizing statute will apply. In short, if a right-of-way was granted prior to the effective date of the rule, or an application for a right-of-way was pending as of the effective date of the rule, only the procedural provisions of the final rule apply to those grants and the other provisions do not apply to those grants. If an existing right-of-way is amended, assigned, or mortgaged, on or after the effective date of the rule, the final rule's procedural provisions apply to that amendment, assignment, or mortgage. An “existing right-of-way” is a grant issued before the effective date of the final rule, or a grant for which the application was pending on the effective date of the final rule is issued after the effective date of the final rule.

This document provides guidance regarding which provisions BIA considers procedural (and thus applicable to all right-of-way grants, regardless of when issued, and applicable to all amendments, assignments, and mortgages of existing right-of-way grants, unless the procedural provision conflicts with the explicit provisions of the right-of-way grant or authorizing statute).

Procedural Provisions in Final Rights-of-Way on Indian Land Rule Subpart A—Purpose, Definitions, General Provisions

• § 169.12 How does BIA provide notice to the parties to a right-of-way?

• § 169.13 May decisions under this part be appealed?

Subpart B—Service Line Agreements

• [No procedural provisions] Note: If you have a service line that is not in compliance with the older version of the regulations, you may be in trespass.

Subpart C—Obtaining a Right-of-Way

• § 169.107 Must I obtain tribal or individual Indian landowner consent for a right-of-way across Indian land? Note: This provision is procedural only with regard to the grant of an amendment, assignment, or mortgage of an existing right-of-way after the effective date of the final rule; otherwise, it is prospective.

• § 169.109 Whose consent do I need for a right-of-way when there is a life estate on the tract? Note: This provision is procedural only with regard to the grant of an amendment, assignment, or mortgage of an existing right-of-way after the effective date of the final rule; otherwise, it is prospective.

• § 169.119 Will BIA notify a grantee when a payment is due for a right-of-way?

• § 169.127 Is a new right-of-way grant required for a new use within or overlapping an existing right-of-way?

• § 169.129 What is required if the location described in the original application and grant differs from the construction location?

Subpart D—Duration, Renewals, Amendments, Assignments, Mortgages

• § 169.202 Under what circumstances will a grant of right-of-way be renewed?

• § 169.203 May a right-of-way be renewed multiple times?

• § 169.204 May a grantee amend a right-of-way?

• § 169.205 What is the approval process for an amendment of a right-of-way?

• § 169.206 How will BIA decide whether to approve an amendment of a right-of-way?

• § 169.207 May a grantee assign a right-of-way?

• § 169.208 What is the approval process for an assignment of a right-of-way?

• § 169.209 How will BIA decide whether to approve an assignment of a right-of-way?

• § 169.210 May a grantee mortgage a right-of-way?

• § 169.211 What is the approval process for a mortgage of a right-of-way?

• § 169.212 How will BIA decide whether to approve a mortgage of a right-of-way?

Subpart E—Effectiveness

• § 169.301 When will a right-of-way document be effective?

• § 169.302 Must a right-of-way be recorded?

• § 169.303 What happens if BIA denies a right-of-way document?

• § 169.304 What happens if BIA does not meet a deadline for issuing a decision on a right-of-way document?

• § 169.305 Will BIA require an appeal bond for an appeal of a decision on a right-of-way document?

Subpart F—Compliance and Enforcement

• § 169.402 Who may investigate compliance with a right-of-way?

• § 169.404 What will BIA do about a violation of a right-of-way grant?

• § 169.405 What will BIA do if the grantee does not cure a violation of a right-of-way grant on time?

• § 169.406 Will late payment charges, penalties, or special fees apply to delinquent payments due under a right-of-way grant?

• § 169.407 How will payment rights relating to a right-of-way grant be allocated?

• § 169.408 What is the process for cancelling a right-of-way for non-use or abandonment?

• § 169.409 When will a cancellation of a right-of-way grant be effective?

• § 169.410 What will BIA do if a grantee remains in possession after a right-of-way expires or is terminated or cancelled?

• § 169.411 Will BIA appeal bond regulations apply to cancellation decisions involving right-of-way grants?

• § 169.412 When will BIA issue a decision on an appeal from a right-of-way decision?

• § 169.415 How will BIA conduct compliance and enforcement when there is a life estate on the tract?

All other provisions of the final rule are general statements or apply prospectively only. A chart providing more information on each provision and how it applies can be viewed at: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/ORM/RightsofWay/index.htm.

Dated: March 29, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-07868 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Foreign Assets Control 31 CFR Part 554 Burundi Sanctions Regulations AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is issuing regulations to implement Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015 (“Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi”). OFAC intends to supplement this part 554 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance and additional general licenses and statements of licensing policy.

DATES:

Effective: April 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control: Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480, Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855, Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490; or the Department of the Treasury's Office of the Chief Counsel (Foreign Assets Control), Office of the General Counsel, tel.: 202-622-2410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site (www.treasury.gov/ofac). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

Background

On November 22, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13712 (80 FR 73633, November 25, 2015) (E.O. 13712), invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). OFAC is issuing the Burundi Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 554 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 13712, pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13712. A copy of E.O. 13712 appears in Appendix A to this part.

The Regulations are being published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part 554 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance, and additional general licenses and statements of licensing policy. The appendix to the Regulations will be removed when OFAC supplements this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations.

Public Participation

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. 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.

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 554

Administrative practice and procedure, Banking, Banks, Blocking of assets, Brokers, Burundi, Credit, Foreign Trade, Investments, Loans, Securities, Services.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control adds part 554 to 31 CFR chapter V to read as follows:

PART 554—BURUNDI SANCTIONS REGULATIONS Subpart A—Relation of This Part to Other Laws and Regulations Sec. 554.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations. Subpart B—Prohibitions 554.201 Prohibited transactions. 554.202 Effect of transfers violating the provisions of this part. 554.203 Holding of funds in interest-bearing accounts; investment and reinvestment. 554.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked property; liquidation of blocked property. Subpart C—General Definitions 554.300 Applicability of definitions. 554.301 Blocked account; blocked property. 554.302 Effective date. 554.303 Entity. 554.304 Financial, material, or technological support. 554.305 Interest. 554.306 Licenses; general and specific. 554.307 OFAC. 554.308 Person. 554.309 Property; property interest. 554.310 Transfer. 554.311 United States. 554.312 United States person; U.S. person. 554.313 U.S. financial institution. Subpart D—Interpretations 554.401 [Reserved] 554.402 Effect of amendment. 554.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. 554.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction. 554.405 Setoffs prohibited. 554.406 Entities owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked. Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy 554.501 General and specific licensing procedures. 554.502 [Reserved] 554.503 Exclusion from licenses. 554.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions. 554.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. 554.506 Provision of certain legal services authorized. 554.507 Payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States authorized. 554.508 Authorization of emergency medical services. Subpart F and G —[Reserved] Subpart H—Procedures 554.801 [Reserved] 554.802 Delegation by the Secretary of the Treasury. Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act 554.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. APPENDIX A TO PART 554—Executive Order 13712 Authority:

3 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321(b); 50 U.S.C. 1601-1651, 1701-1706; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 110-96, 121 Stat. 1011 (50 U.S.C. 1705 note); E.O. 13712, 80 FR 73633, November 25, 2015.

Subpart A—Relation of This Part to Other Laws and Regulations
§ 554.101 Relation of this part to other laws and regulations.

This part is separate from, and independent of, the other parts of this chapter, with the exception of part 501 of this chapter, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and license application and other procedures of which apply to this part. Actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. Differing foreign policy and national security circumstances may result in differing interpretations of similar language among the parts of this chapter. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to those other parts authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizes any transaction prohibited by this part. No license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part relieves the involved parties from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.

Note to § 554.101: This part has been published in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance and additional general licenses and statements of licensing policy.

Subpart B—Prohibitions
§ 554.201 Prohibited transactions.

All transactions prohibited pursuant to Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, are also prohibited pursuant to this part.

Note 1 to § 554.201: The names of persons listed in or designated pursuant to Executive Order 13712, whose property and interests in property therefore are blocked pursuant to this section, are published in the Federal Register and incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) with the identifier “[BURUNDI].” The SDN List is accessible through the following page on OFAC's Web site: www.treasury.gov/sdn. Additional information pertaining to the SDN List can be found in Appendix A to this chapter. See § 554.406 concerning entities that may not be listed on the SDN List but whose property and interests in property are nevertheless blocked pursuant to this section.

Note 2 to § 554.201: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), in Section 203 (50 U.S.C. 1702), authorizes the blocking of property and interests in property of a person during the pendency of an investigation. The names of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pending investigation pursuant to this section also are published in the Federal Register and incorporated into the SDN List with the identifier “[BPI-BURUNDI]”.

Note 3 to § 554.201: Sections 501.806 and 501.807 of this chapter describe the procedures to be followed by persons seeking, respectively, the unblocking of funds that they believe were blocked due to mistaken identity, or administrative reconsideration of their status as persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.

§ 554.202 Effect of transfers violating the provisions of this part.

(a) Any transfer after the effective date that is in violation of any provision of this part or of any regulation, order, directive, ruling, instruction, or license issued pursuant to this part, and that involves any property or interest in property blocked pursuant to § 554.201, is null and void and shall not be the basis for the assertion or recognition of any interest in or right, remedy, power, or privilege with respect to such property or property interest.

(b) No transfer before the effective date shall be the basis for the assertion or recognition of any right, remedy, power, or privilege with respect to, or any interest in, any property or interest in property blocked pursuant to § 554.201, unless the person who holds or maintains such property, prior to that date, had written notice of the transfer or by any written evidence had recognized such transfer.

(c) Unless otherwise provided, a license or other authorization issued by OFAC before, during, or after a transfer shall validate such transfer or make it enforceable to the same extent that it would be valid or enforceable but for the provisions of this part and any regulation, order, directive, ruling, instruction, or license issued pursuant to this part.

(d) Transfers of property that otherwise would be null and void or unenforceable by virtue of the provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be null and void or unenforceable as to any person with whom such property is or was held or maintained (and as to such person only) in cases in which such person is able to establish to the satisfaction of OFAC each of the following:

(1) Such transfer did not represent a willful violation of the provisions of this part by the person with whom such property is or was held or maintained (and as to such person only);

(2) The person with whom such property is or was held or maintained did not have reasonable cause to know or suspect, in view of all the facts and circumstances known or available to such person, that such transfer required a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part and was not so licensed or authorized, or, if a license or authorization did purport to cover the transfer, that such license or authorization had been obtained by misrepresentation of a third party or withholding of material facts or was otherwise fraudulently obtained; and

(3) The person with whom such property is or was held or maintained filed with OFAC a report setting forth in full the circumstances relating to such transfer promptly upon discovery that:

(i) Such transfer was in violation of the provisions of this part or any regulation, ruling, instruction, license, or other directive or authorization issued pursuant to this part;

(ii) Such transfer was not licensed or authorized by OFAC; or

(iii) If a license did purport to cover the transfer, such license had been obtained by misrepresentation of a third party or withholding of material facts or was otherwise fraudulently obtained.

Note to paragraph (d): The filing of a report in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall not be deemed evidence that the terms of paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section have been satisfied.

(e) Unless licensed pursuant to this part, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is null and void with respect to any property and interests in property blocked pursuant to § 554.201.

§ 554.203 Holding of funds in interest-bearing accounts; investment and reinvestment.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) or (f) of this section, or as otherwise directed or authorized by OFAC, any U.S. person holding funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, subject to § 554.201 shall hold or place such funds in a blocked interest-bearing account located in the United States.

(b)(1) For purposes of this section, the term blocked interest-bearing account means a blocked account:

(i) In a federally-insured U.S. bank, thrift institution, or credit union, provided the funds are earning interest at rates that are commercially reasonable; or

(ii) With a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), provided the funds are invested in a money market fund or in U.S. Treasury bills.

(2) Funds held or placed in a blocked account pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section may not be invested in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days.

(c) For purposes of this section, a rate is commercially reasonable if it is the rate currently offered to other depositors on deposits or instruments of comparable size and maturity.

(d) For purposes of this section, if interest is credited to a separate blocked account or subaccount, the name of the account party on each account must be the same.

(e) Blocked funds held in instruments the maturity of which exceeds 180 days at the time the funds become subject to § 554.201 may continue to be held until maturity in the original instrument, provided any interest, earnings, or other proceeds derived therefrom are paid into a blocked interest-bearing account in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (f) of this section.

(f) Blocked funds held in accounts or instruments outside the United States at the time the funds become subject to § 554.201 may continue to be held in the same type of accounts or instruments, provided the funds earn interest at rates that are commercially reasonable.

(g) This section does not create an affirmative obligation for the holder of blocked tangible property, such as chattels or real estate, or of other blocked property, such as debt or equity securities, to sell or liquidate such property. However, OFAC may issue licenses permitting or directing such sales or liquidation in appropriate cases.

(h) Funds subject to this section may not be held, invested, or reinvested in a manner that provides immediate financial or economic benefit or access to any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, nor may their holder cooperate in or facilitate the pledging or other attempted use as collateral of blocked funds or other assets.

§ 554.204 Expenses of maintaining blocked property; liquidation of blocked property.

(a) Except as otherwise authorized, and notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date, all expenses incident to the maintenance of physical property blocked pursuant to § 554.201 shall be the responsibility of the owners or operators of such property, which expenses shall not be met from blocked funds.

(b) Property blocked pursuant to § 554.201 may, in the discretion of OFAC, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.

Subpart C—General Definitions
§ 554.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.

§ 554.301 Blocked account; blocked property.

The terms blocked account and blocked property shall mean any account or property subject to the prohibitions in § 554.201 held in the name of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, or in which such person has an interest, and with respect to which payments, transfers, exportations, withdrawals, or other dealings may not be made or effected except pursuant to a license or other authorization from OFAC expressly authorizing such action.

Note to § 554.301: See § 554.406 concerning the blocked status of property and interests in property of an entity that is 50 percent or more owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201.

§ 554.302 Effective date.

The term effective date refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part as follows:

(a) With respect to a person listed in the Annex to E.O. 13712 of November 22, 2015, 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on November 23, 2015; and

(b) With respect to a person whose property and interest in property are otherwise blocked pursuant to § 554.201, the earlier of the date of actual or constructive notice that such person's property and interests in property are blocked.

§ 554.303 Entity.

The term entity means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.

§ 554.304 Financial, material, or technological support.

The term financial, material,or technological support, as used in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, means any property, tangible or intangible, including but not limited to currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other transmission of value; weapons or related materiel; chemical or biological agents; explosives; false documentation or identification; communications equipment; computers; electronic or other devices or equipment; technologies; lodging; safe houses; facilities; vehicles or other means of transportation; or goods. “Technologies” as used in this definition means specific information necessary for the development, production, or use of a product, including related technical data such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and specifications, manuals, or other recorded instructions.

§ 554.305 Interest.

Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term interest, when used with respect to property (e.g., “an interest in property”), means an interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect.

§ 554.306 Licenses; general and specific.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this part, the term license means any license or authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part.

(b) The term general license means any license or authorization the terms of which are set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's Web site: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

(c) The term specific license means any license or authorization issued pursuant to this part but not set forth in subpart E of this part or made available on OFAC's Web site: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

Note to § 554.306: See § 501.801 of this chapter on licensing procedures.

§ 554.307 OFAC.

The term OFAC means the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.

§ 554.308 Person.

The term person means an individual or entity.

§ 554.309 Property; property interest.

The terms property and property interest include, but are not limited to, money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand, ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors' sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities, pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, present, future, or contingent.

§ 554.310 Transfer.

The term transfer means any actual or purported act or transaction, whether or not evidenced by writing, and whether or not done or performed within the United States, the purpose, intent, or effect of which is to create, surrender, release, convey, transfer, or alter, directly or indirectly, any right, remedy, power, privilege, or interest with respect to any property. Without limitation on the foregoing, it shall include the making, execution, or delivery of any assignment, power, conveyance, check, declaration, deed, deed of trust, power of attorney, power of appointment, bill of sale, mortgage, receipt, agreement, contract, certificate, gift, sale, affidavit, or statement; the making of any payment; the setting off of any obligation or credit; the appointment of any agent, trustee, or fiduciary; the creation or transfer of any lien; the issuance, docketing, or filing of, or levy of or under, any judgment, decree, attachment, injunction, execution, or other judicial or administrative process or order, or the service of any garnishment; the acquisition of any interest of any nature whatsoever by reason of a judgment or decree of any foreign country; the fulfillment of any condition; the exercise of any power of appointment, power of attorney, or other power; or the acquisition, disposition, transportation, importation, exportation, or withdrawal of any security.

§ 554.311 United States.

The term United States means the United States, its territories and possessions, and all areas under the jurisdiction or authority thereof.

§ 554.312 United States person; U.S. person.

The term United States person or U.S. person means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

§ 554.313 U.S. financial institution.

The term U.S. financial institution means any U.S. entity (including its foreign branches) that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, or commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. It includes depository institutions, banks, savings banks, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, and U.S. holding companies, U.S. affiliates, or U.S. subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. This term includes those branches, offices, and agencies of foreign financial institutions that are located in the United States, but not such institutions' foreign branches, offices, or agencies.

Subpart D—Interpretations
§ 554.401 [Reserved]
§ 554.402 Effect of amendment.

Unless otherwise specifically provided, any amendment, modification, or revocation of any provision in or appendix to this part or chapter or of any order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license issued by OFAC does not affect any act done or omitted, or any civil or criminal proceeding commenced or pending, prior to such amendment, modification, or revocation. All penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities under any such order, regulation, ruling, instruction, or license continue and may be enforced as if such amendment, modification, or revocation had not been made.

§ 554.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property.

(a) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 554.201, unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 554.201, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.

(b) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or other authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, such property shall be deemed to be property in which such person has an interest and therefore blocked.

§ 554.404 Transactions ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction.

Any transaction ordinarily incident to a licensed transaction and necessary to give effect thereto is also authorized, except:

(a) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, by or with a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201; or

(b) An ordinarily incident transaction, not explicitly authorized within the terms of the license, involving a debit to a blocked account or a transfer of blocked property.

§ 554.405 Setoffs prohibited.

A setoff against blocked property (including a blocked account), whether by a U.S. bank or other U.S. person, is a prohibited transfer under § 554.201 if effected after the effective date.

§ 554.406 Entities owned by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked.

Persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201 have an interest in all property and interests in property of an entity in which such blocked persons own, whether individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest. The property and interests in property of such an entity, therefore, are blocked, and such an entity is a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, regardless of whether the name of the entity is incorporated into OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List).

Subpart E—Licenses, Authorizations, and Statements of Licensing Policy
§ 554.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Burundi sanctions page on OFAC's Web site: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

§ 554.502 [Reserved]
§ 554.503 Exclusion from licenses.

OFAC reserves the right to exclude any person, property, transaction, or class thereof from the operation of any license or from the privileges conferred by any license. OFAC also reserves the right to restrict the applicability of any license to particular persons, property, transactions, or classes thereof. Such actions are binding upon actual or constructive notice of the exclusions or restrictions.

§ 554.504 Payments and transfers to blocked accounts in U.S. financial institutions.

Any payment of funds or transfer of credit in which a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201 has any interest that comes within the possession or control of a U.S. financial institution must be blocked in an account on the books of that financial institution. A transfer of funds or credit by a U.S. financial institution between blocked accounts in its branches or offices is authorized, provided that no transfer is made from an account within the United States to an account held outside the United States, and further provided that a transfer from a blocked account may be made only to another blocked account held in the same name.

Note to § 554.504: See § 501.603 of this chapter for mandatory reporting requirements regarding financial transfers. See also § 554.203 concerning the obligation to hold blocked funds in interest-bearing accounts.

§ 554.505 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized.

(a) A U.S. financial institution is authorized to debit any blocked account held at that financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed it by the owner of that blocked account.

(b) As used in this section, the term normal service charges shall include charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, internet, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; and, but not by way of limitation, minimum balance charges, notary and protest fees, and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.

§ 554.506 Provision of certain legal services authorized.

(a) The provision of the following legal services to or on behalf of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201 or any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, is authorized, provided that receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses must be specifically licensed, authorized pursuant to § 554.507, which authorizes certain payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States, or otherwise authorized pursuant to this part:

(1) Provision of legal advice and counseling on the requirements of and compliance with the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, provided that such advice and counseling are not provided to facilitate transactions in violation of this part;

(2) Representation of persons named as defendants in or otherwise made parties to legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;

(3) Initiation and conduct of legal, arbitration, or administrative proceedings before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency;

(4) Representation of persons before any U.S. federal, state, or local court or agency with respect to the imposition, administration, or enforcement of U.S. sanctions against such persons; and

(5) Provision of legal services in any other context in which prevailing U.S. law requires access to legal counsel at public expense.

(b) The provision of any other legal services to persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201 or any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, not otherwise authorized in this part, requires the issuance of a specific license.

(c) Entry into a settlement agreement or the enforcement of any lien, judgment, arbitral award, decree, or other order through execution, garnishment, or other judicial process purporting to transfer or otherwise alter or affect property or interests in property blocked pursuant to § 554.201 or any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, is prohibited unless licensed pursuant to this part.

Note to § 554.506: U.S. persons seeking administrative reconsideration or judicial review of their designation or the blocking of their property and interests in property may apply for a specific license from OFAC to authorize the release of a limited amount of blocked funds for the payment of legal fees where alternative funding sources are not available. For more information, see OFAC's Guidance on the Release of Limited Amounts of Blocked Funds for Payment of Legal Fees and Costs Incurred in Challenging the Blocking of U.S. Persons in Administrative or Civil Proceedings, which is available on OFAC's Web site: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

§ 554.507 Payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States authorized.

(a) Receipt of payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) to or on behalf of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201 or any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, is authorized from funds originating outside the United States, provided that the funds received by U.S. persons as payment of professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses for the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) do not originate from:

(1) A source within the United States;

(2) Any source, wherever located, within the possession or control of a U.S. person; or

(3) Any individual or entity, other than the person on whose behalf the legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) are to be provided, whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of this chapter or any Executive order.

Note to § 554.507: This paragraph authorizes the blocked person on whose behalf the legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) are to be provided to make payments for authorized legal services using funds originating outside the United States that were not previously blocked. Nothing in this paragraph authorizes payments for legal services using funds in which any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 554.201, any other part of this chapter, or any Executive order has an interest.

(b) Reports. (1) U.S. persons who receive payments in connection with legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) must submit annual reports no later than 30 days following the end of the calendar year during which the payments were received providing information on the funds received. Such reports shall specify:

(i) The individual or entity from whom the funds originated and the amount of funds received; and

(ii) If applicable:

(A) The names of any individuals or entities providing related services to the U.S. person receiving payment in connection with authorized legal services, such as private investigators or expert witnesses;

(B) A general description of the services provided; and

(C) The amount of funds paid in connection with such services.

(2) The reports, which must reference this section, are to be mailed to: Licensing Division, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Annex, Washington, DC 20220.

Note to § 554.507: U.S. persons who receive payments in connection with legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a) do not need to obtain specific authorization to contract for related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of those legal services, such as those provided by private investigators or expert witnesses, or to pay for such services. Additionally, U.S. persons do not need to obtain specific authorization to provide related services that are ordinarily incident to the provision of legal services authorized pursuant to § 554.506(a).

§ 554.508 Authorization of emergency medical services.

The provision and receipt of nonscheduled emergency medical services that are otherwise prohibited by this part or any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, are authorized.

Subparts F and G—[Reserved] Subpart H—Procedures
§ 554.801 [Reserved]
§ 554.802 Delegation by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Any action that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to take pursuant to Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, and any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared therein, may be taken by the Director of OFAC or by any other person to whom the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority so to act.

Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act
§ 554.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

For approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information collections relating to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, licensing procedures, and other procedures, see § 501.901 of this chapter. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

APPENDIX A TO PART 554—Executive Order 13712 Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015 Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the situation in Burundi, which has been marked by the killing of and violence against civilians, unrest, the incitement of imminent violence, and significant political repression, and which threatens the peace, security, and stability of Burundi, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; and

(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following in or in relation to Burundi:

(1) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burundi;

(2) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Burundi;

(3) human rights abuses;

(4) the targeting of women, children, or any civilians through the commission of acts of violence (including killing, maiming, torture, or rape or other sexual violence), abduction, forced displacement, or attacks on schools, hospitals, religious sites, or locations where civilians are seeking refuge, or through other conduct that may constitute a serious abuse or violation of human rights or a violation of international humanitarian law;

(5) actions or policies that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or freedom of peaceful assembly;

(6) the use or recruitment of children by armed groups or armed forces;

(7) the obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance; or

(8) attacks, attempted attacks, or threats against United Nations missions, international security presences, or other peacekeeping operations;

(B) to be a leader or official of:

(1) an entity, including any government entity or armed group, that has, or whose members have, engaged in any of the activities described in subsection (a)(ii)(A) of this section; or

(2) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:

(1) any of the activities described in subsection (a)(ii)(A) of this section; or

(2) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in subsection 1(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 3. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 4. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 6. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.

Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination.

Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit the recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).

Sec. 11. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 12. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on November 23, 2015.

Barack Obama THE WHITE HOUSE, November 22, 2015 ANNEX

1. Alain Guillaume Bunyoni [Minister of Public Security; born January 2, 1972]

2. Cyrille Ndayirukiye [Former Defense Minister; born July 8, 1954]

3. Godefroid Niyombare [Major General; born October 18, 1969]

4. Godefroid Bizimana [born April 23, 1968]

Dated March 23, 2016. John E. Smith, Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. Approved: Dated: March 29, 2016. Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Department of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2016-07851 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0189] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River Mile 95.7 to 96.7; New Orleans, LA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone from Mile Marker (MM) 95.7 to MM 96.7 above Head of Passes (AHP) on the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) on April 12, 2016. This safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from potential safety hazards associated with fireworks displays on or over navigable waterways. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 6:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on April 12, 2016. Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0189 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 on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) James Gatz, Sector New Orleans, at (504) 365-2281 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations AHP Above Head of Passes BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile Marker NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Public Participation and Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. 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. Documents mentioned in this rule, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions.

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).

III. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard received information about this fireworks display on or about January 27, 2016. Due to the risks associated with an aerial barge-based fireworks display taking place on and over the waterway, a safety zone is needed. It would be impracticable to publish a NPRM because the safety zone must be established on April 12, 2016. This rule provides for a comment period and comments received will be reviewed and analyzed to assist the Coast Guard in future rulemakings establishing similar safety zones. The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM).

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing a full 30-days notice would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to protect persons and property from the hazards associated with an aerial fireworks display taking place on and over the waterway.

IV. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On April 12, 2016, a fireworks display will be launched from a barge positioned in the waterway adjacent to Mardi Gras World, an event venue located at MM 96.2 AHP on the Lower Mississippi River, in a high commercial traffic area near a tight river bend. Therefore, the Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is needed to ensure safe navigation for all those in the vicinity of these fireworks displays.

V. Discussion of the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Lower Mississippi River, for one hour during the evening of April 12, 2016, to occur between 6 and 11 p.m. The safety zone will include the entire width of the Lower Mississippi River in New Orleans, LA from MM 95.7 to MM 96.7 AHP. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the COTP New Orleans, or a designated representative.

The COTP New Orleans will inform the public through BNMs of the one-hour enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule. Mariners and other members of the public may also contact Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Command Center to inquire about the status of the safety zone, at (504) 365-2200.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order 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 rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This safety zone will only restrict navigation on the Lower Mississippi River from MM 95.7 to MM 96.7 AHP, for approximately one hour on April 12, 2016. Due to the limited scope and short duration of the safety zone, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone area during the periods of enforcement. The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they are limited in scope and will be in effect for a short period of time. Before the enforcement periods, the Coast Guard COTP will issue maritime advisories widely available to waterway users. Deviation from the safety zone established through this rulemaking may be requested from the appropriate COTP and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety zone for all waters of the Lower Mississippi River from MM 95.7 to MM 96.7 AHP. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T08-0189 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0189 Safety Zones; Lower Mississippi River Miles 95.7 to 96.7; New Orleans, LA.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 95.7 to mile marker 96.7 Above Head of Passes, New Orleans, LA.

(b) Enforcement period. This rule is enforceable on April 12, 2016, for one hour in the evening to occur between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The one-hour enforcement period will be noticed as indicated under paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) New Orleans or designated personnel. Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. For this rule the COTP's designated representative is Vessel Traffic Service Lower Mississippi River.

(2) Vessels requiring deviation from this rule must request permission from the COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67, or through Vessel Traffic Service Lower Mississippi River at 504-365-2415.

(3) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from this safety zone regulation and enter the restricted area must transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP New Orleans or the designated representative.

(d) Information broadcasts. The COTP New Orleans or a COTP New Orleans designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the planned schedule.

Dated: March 30, 2016. W.R. Arguin Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2016-07729 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 17 RIN 2900-AP09 Health Care for Certain Children of Vietnam Veterans and Certain Korea Veterans—Covered Birth Defects and Spina Bifida AGENCY:

Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule adopts as final a proposed rule of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to amend its regulations concerning the provision of health care to birth children of Vietnam veterans and veterans of covered service in Korea diagnosed with spina bifida, except for spina bifida occulta, and certain other birth defects. In the proposed rule published on May 15, 2015, VA proposed changes to more clearly define the types of health care VA provides, including day health care and health-related services, which we defined as homemaker or home health aide services that provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living or Instrumental Activities of Daily Living that have therapeutic value. We also proposed changes to the list of health care services that require preauthorization by VA. This final rule addresses comments received from the public and adopts as final the proposed rule, without change.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective on May 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karyn Barrett, Director, Program Administration Directorate, Chief Business Office Purchased Care (10NB3), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (303) 331-7500. (This is not a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Chapter 18 of title 38, United States Code, provides for benefits for certain birth children of Vietnam veterans and veterans of covered service in Korea who have been diagnosed with spina bifida, except spina bifida occulta, and certain other birth defects. These benefits include: (1) Monthly monetary allowances for various disability levels; (2) health care; and (3) vocational training and rehabilitation. VA's regulations concerning health care for children authorized under this chapter are published at 38 CFR 17.900 through 17.905.

On May 15, 2015, VA published a proposed rule to more clearly define the types of healthcare VA provides, including day healthcare and health-related services, which VA would define as homemaker or home health aide services that provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living or Instrumental Activities of Daily Living that have therapeutic value; and to make changes to the list of health care services that require preauthorization by VA. (80 FR 27878). The comment period closed on June 14, 2015. We received ten comments, which were all generally supportive. However, the commenters raised several issues regarding beneficiaries covered by this rulemaking, specific services provided, definitions included in the proposed rule, and provision of health care through non-VA care (care in the community). We respond to these comments below and adopt as final the proposed rule, without change.

Scope of the Rulemaking

One commenter stated that children of Vietnam veterans who have spina bifida may have children of their own, and VA should also provide care to grandchildren of Vietnam veterans who have spina bifida. The commenter stated that according to the US National Library of Medicine, spina bifida is likely caused by the interaction of multiple genetic and environmental factors, and that genetic changes in individuals with spina bifida may increase the risk of neural tube defects in the subsequent generation. The commenter stated that if a child with spina bifida can establish that the grandfather was exposed to herbicides during the Vietnam War, that child should also be covered.

Another commenter stated that children of Air Force active duty servicemembers and reservists who were exposed to Agent Orange while flying C-123 aircraft both during the Vietnam War and the post-war period should also be covered. The commenter noted that these servicemembers flew out of air bases in Thailand and Clark Air Base in the Philippine Islands, and some of the airplanes potentially contaminated by Agent Orange remained in service after the war.

In response to the first comment, VA does not have statutory authority to provide health care to grandchildren of Vietnam veterans who may have spina bifida. VA's authority to provide health care to children with spina bifida or other covered birth defects is limited by statute. A “child” covered under this statute is defined at 38 U.S.C. 1831(1) as an individual, regardless of age or marital status, who is the natural child of a Vietnam veteran, and was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era; or, is the natural child of a veteran of covered service in Korea (as determined for purposes of 38 U.S.C. 1821), and was conceived after the date on which that veteran first entered service described in 38 U.S.C. 1821(c).

With respect to the second comment, VA also does not have the authority to extend benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 18 to children of veterans who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era or who did not have certain service in Korea. “Vietnam veteran” is defined at 38 U.S.C. 1831(2) to mean an individual who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, without regard to the characterization of that individual's service. The “Vietnam era” is defined at 38 U.S.C. 1831(3) as ending on May 7, 1975. A veteran of covered service in Korea is any individual, without regard to the characterization of that individual's service, who served in the active military, naval, or air service in or near the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ), as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, during the period beginning on September 1, 1967, and ending on August 31, 1971; and is determined by VA, in consultation with the Department of Defense, to have been exposed to an herbicide agent during such service in or near the Korean demilitarized zone. 38 U.S.C. 1821(c). To the extent a veteran who flew in a C-123 is also a veteran with covered service defined in 38 U.S.C. 1831(2) and has a child covered by 38 U.S.C. 1831(1), however, the child would be eligible for benefits under Chapter 18.

In further response to the comment regarding reservists and servicemembers who flew in C-123 aircraft, we note that VA does have authority in certain other circumstances to extend benefits to veterans who did not serve in those defined areas or time periods, but may have been exposed to Agent Orange. This authority is unrelated to benefits furnished to eligible children under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 18 but we briefly discuss it here because a recent VA rulemaking is relevant to the second public comment. On June 19, 2015, VA published an interim final rule (80 FR 35248) extending the presumption of herbicide exposure and presumption of service connection to individuals who performed service in the Air Force or Air Force Reserve under circumstances in which the individual concerned regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era. The June 2015 interim final rule thus covers servicemembers who were potentially exposed to Agent Orange during periods after the end of the Vietnam War, and in regions outside of Vietnam. VA determined that the presumption of service connection should be extended to these servicemembers based on a January 2015 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Institute of Medicine (IOM) titled “Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft.” In that report the IOM noted that between 1972 and 1982, approximately 1,500 to 2,100 U.S. Air Force Reserve personnel trained and worked on C-123 aircraft that previously had been used to spray herbicides, including Agent Orange, during Operation Ranch Hand. Based on a review of the evidence, IOM concluded that it was plausible that Air Force reservists flying C-123 aircraft used in Operation Ranch Hand were exposed to Agent Orange.

We make no changes based on these comments.

Definitions

One commenter asked whether the proposed addition of day health care to the list of health care services would require the beneficiary to transfer to a group home. In the proposed rule we defined day health care to mean a therapeutic program prescribed by an approved health care provider that provides necessary medical services, rehabilitation, therapeutic activities, socialization, nutrition, and transportation services in a congregate setting. Day health care services contemplated under this proposal are non-residential and equivalent to adult day health care provided to disabled veterans under 38 CFR 17.111(c)(1). These would not require the beneficiary to relocate to a group home. The essential features are the therapeutic focus of the day health care services and provision of these services in a congregate setting. The addition of day health care to the list of covered health care services augments rather than contracts the options available. Day health care is an alternative care setting that can allow some beneficiaries who require long term care services to remain in their homes rather than be institutionalized in a nursing home. Such beneficiaries typically require support for some, but not all, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), such as bathing, dressing or feeding. In many cases, a family member may provide the beneficiary with much of their care, but require additional support for some ADLs. By filling these gaps, day health care can allow these beneficiaries to remain in their homes and communities for additional months or even years. Day health care programs can help caregivers to meet their other professional and family obligations, or provide a well-deserved respite, while their loved ones are participating in the program.

Two commenters urged VA to allow payment for homemakers and home health aides to shop for groceries outside of the home. Homemaker and home health aide (H/HHA) services are health-related services. VA provides health-related services, including H/HHA services, to veterans under 38 U.S.C. 1720C. We proposed to provide H/HHA services to spina bifida beneficiaries similar to that provided to veterans, to the extent allowed by law. Under 38 U.S.C. 1720C, VA may provide H/HHA to veterans in “noninstitutional settings.” This includes services performed outside the home, such as grocery shopping and escorting the veteran to necessary appointments. VA may not provide such services to beneficiaries under the Spina Bifida Health Care Benefits Program, health-related services for spina bifida beneficiaries are included as a component of home care. Home care is defined at 38 U.S.C. 1803(c)(3) as outpatient care, habilitative and rehabilitative care, preventive health services, and health-related services furnished to an individual in the individual's home or other place of residence. This definition specifically limits the provision of health-related services under 38 U.S.C. 1803 to those services furnished within the home or other place of residence. Grocery shopping, which is an H/HHA type of health-related service performed outside the home or other place of residence, cannot be provided due to this statutory restriction that applies to the Spina Bifida Health Care Benefits Program, but not to VA's authorities to provide care to veterans.

One commenter supported the proposed rule, but urged us to amend the definition of “other place of residence.” As noted above, home care, including health-related services such as H/HHA services, is provided in the individual's home or other place of residence. We proposed to define other place of residence to include an assisted living facility or residential group home. Assisted living facilities and residential group homes are appropriate for individuals who do not require the level of care provided in a nursing home, and VA believes that providing home care in assisted living facilities and residential group homes will allow individuals to retain a greater level of independence and quality of life, and delay or prevent any need for nursing home care. While VA may provide services to an individual residing in an assisted living facility or residential group home, we do not have the statutory authority to pay for placement in such facility. The types of alternatives to home care that VA may provide under 38 U.S.C. 1803 are nursing home care, hospital care, and respite care. The commenter suggested amending the definition of “other place of residence” to state that “placement in such facility or home is covered to the extent that the facility or home provides covered care or services.” The commenter stated that this would clarify that VA can provide for placement in an assisted living facility or residential group home to the extent that such location provides aspects of care or services covered under 38 U.S.C. 1803. We do not agree. Payment for placement in an assisted living facility or residential group home is distinctly different than providing for care and services rendered in such facility. While VA cannot do the former, we may do the latter to the extent allowed by law. VA believes that the suggested language would lead to confusion as it implies that VA can cover, to some extent, placement in an assisted living facility or residential group home.

One commenter asked for clarification of what long-term care means as that term applies to H/HHA services. Specifically, the commenter asked whether a spina bifida beneficiary would be entitled to receive H/HHA services around the clock and indefinitely. One commenter asked whether there would be a limit on the number of hours of H/HHA services that a beneficiary may receive. As noted above, H/HHA services provided to spina bifida beneficiaries are similar to that provided to veterans, to the extent allowed by law. Under 38 U.S.C. 1720C, VA is authorized to provide veterans with health-related services in a non-institutional setting. The total cost of providing such services or in-kind assistance to any veteran in any fiscal year may not exceed 65 percent of the cost that would have been incurred by VA during that fiscal year if the veteran had been furnished, instead, nursing home care under 38 U.S.C. 1710. See 38 U.S.C. 1720C(d). The same limitation is applied currently to H/HHA services provided to spina bifida beneficiaries and will continue to apply under this rule. Consistent with this limitation, H/HHA services will be provided to spina bifida beneficiaries if medically necessary.

The commenter also requested clarification on what type of health care provider must prescribe H/HHA services. These services must be prescribed by an approved health care provider. Under § 17.900, “approved health care provider” means a health care provider currently approved by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Defense TRICARE Program, Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA), Joint Commission, or currently approved for providing health care under a license or certificate issued by a governmental entity with jurisdiction.

The commenter also raised several procedural issues that are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

We make no changes based on these comments.

Miscellaneous

One commenter stated that health care should be provided directly by VA health care providers rather than through care in the community. However, children with covered birth defects or spina bifida require specialty care that may not be available in a VA medical center, and requiring the beneficiary to commute to a VA medical facility could impose an undue burden on the caregiver. Here, care in the community ensures that the beneficiary receives necessary specialty medical care in a timely manner, and eliminates the need to travel to the nearest VA medical center to obtain that care.

Based on the rationale set forth in the preamble to the proposed rule and in this preamble, VA is adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with no changes.

Effect of Rulemaking

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi).

This final rule will impose the following amended information collection requirements. Preauthorization from VA under 38 CFR 17.902(a) is required for certain services or benefits under §§ 17.900 through 17.905. Information collection under this rule is approved under OMB control number 2900-0219. VA is making a minor modification to this information collection by requiring preauthorization for mental health services only for outpatient mental health services, and only when those services are provided in excess of 23 visits in a calendar year. VA also adds day health care provided as outpatient care and homemaker services to the list of services or benefits that must receive preauthorization. VA anticipates that the decrease in the number of beneficiaries that must request preauthorization for mental health services will be offset by the number of beneficiaries that will request preauthorization for day health care. Therefore, we believe that there will be little, if any, change in the total burden hours as a result of this modification. As required by the 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA submitted these information collection amendments to OMB for its review, and the information collection is pending OMB approval. Notice of OMB approval for this information collection will be published in a future Federal Register document.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document.

Signing Authority

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on March 31, 2016, for publication.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17

Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Government contracts, Grant programs-health, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Health facilities, Health professions, Health records, Homeless, Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Medical research, Mental health programs, Nursing homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.

Dated: April 1, 2016. William F. Russo, Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

PART 17—MEDICAL 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.

2. Amend § 17.900 by: a. In the definition of “Approved health care provider” removing “Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO)” from the first sentence and adding, in its place, “The Joint Commission”. b. Adding in alphabetical order a definition of “Day health care”;. c. In the definition of “Health care” adding “long-term care,” to the first sentence immediately after “hospital care,”. d. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of “Health-related services”, “Home health aide services”, “Homemaker services”, “Long-term care”, and “Other place of residence”; e. In the definition of “Outpatient care” adding “day health care and” immediately after the word “including”; and f. Revising the definition of “Respite care”.

The additions and revision read as follows:

§ 17.900 Definitions.

Day health care means a therapeutic program prescribed by an approved health care provider that provides necessary medical services, rehabilitation, therapeutic activities, socialization, nutrition, and transportation services in a congregate setting. Day health care may be provided as a component of outpatient care or respite care.

Health-related services means homemaker or home health aide services furnished in the individual's home or other place of residence to the extent that those services provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living that have therapeutic value.

Home health aide services is a component of health-related services providing personal care and related support services to an individual in the home or other place of residence. Home health aide services may include assistance with Activities of Daily Living such as: Bathing; toileting; eating; dressing; aid in ambulating or transfers; active and passive exercises; assistance with medical equipment; and routine health monitoring. Home health aide services must be provided according to the individual's written plan of care and must be prescribed by an approved health care provider.

Homemaker services is a component of health-related services encompassing certain activities that help to maintain a safe, healthy environment for an individual in the home or other place of residence. Such services contribute to the prevention, delay, or reduction of risk of harm or hospital, nursing home, or other institutional care. Homemaker services include assistance with personal care; home management; completion of simple household tasks; nutrition, including menu planning and meal preparation; consumer education; and hygiene education. Homemaker services may include assistance with Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, such as: Light housekeeping; laundering; meal preparation; necessary services to maintain a safe and sanitary environment in the areas of the home used by the individual; and services essential to the comfort and cleanliness of the individual and ensuring individual safety. Homemaker services must be provided according to the individual's written plan of care and must be prescribed by an approved health care provider.

Long-term care means home care, nursing home care, and respite care.

Other place of residence includes an assisted living facility or residential group home.

Respite care means care, including day health care, furnished by an approved health care provider on an intermittent basis for a limited period to an individual who resides primarily in a private residence when such care will help the individual continue residing in such private residence.

3. Amend § 17.902 by: a. Revising the first three sentences of paragraph (a) introductory text; and b. At the end of the section, removing “2900-0578” from the notice of the Office of Management and Budget control number and adding, in its place, “2900-0219”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 17.902 Preauthorization.

(a) Preauthorization from VA is required for the following services or benefits under §§ 17.900 through 17.905: Rental or purchase of durable medical equipment with a total rental or purchase price in excess of $300, respectively; day health care provided as outpatient care; dental services; homemaker services; outpatient mental health services in excess of 23 visits in a calendar year; substance abuse treatment; training; transplantation services; and travel (other than mileage at the General Services Administration rate for privately owned automobiles). Authorization will only be given in spina bifida cases where it is demonstrated that the care is medically necessary. In cases of other covered birth defects, authorization will only be given where it is demonstrated that the care is medically necessary and related to the covered birth defects. * * *

4. Amend § 17.903 by: a. In paragraph (a)(1), adding a second sentence; and b. At the end of the section, removing “2900-0578” from the notice of the Office of Management and Budget control number and adding, in its place, “2900-0219”.

The addition reads as follows:

§ 17.903 Payme.

(a)(1) * * * For those services or benefits covered by §§ 17.900 through 17.905 but not covered by CHAMPVA we will use payment methodologies the same or similar to those used for equivalent services or benefits provided to veterans.

§ 17.904 [Amended]
5. Amend § 17.904 by, at the end of the section, removing “2900-0578” from the notice of the Office of Management and Budget control number and adding, in its place, “2900-0219”.
[FR Doc. 2016-07897 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0338 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339; FRL-9942-32] Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation amends tolerances for residues of hexythiazox in or on citrus and cotton. Gowan Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective April 6, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before June 6, 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 dockets for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0338 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339, are 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-2015-0338 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339 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 June 6, 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-2015-0338 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339, 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 July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42462) (FRL-9929-13), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 5F8346 and PP 5F8356) by Gowan Company, P.O. Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366-5569. The petitions requested that tolerances currently listed in 40 CFR 180.448 be amended for residues of the insecticide hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in or on citrus, dried pulp at 0.6 parts per million (ppm); citrus, oil at 26 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.6 ppm; cotton gin byproducts at 15 ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.5 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petitions prepared by Gowan Company, 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 revoked citrus, dried pulp tolerance as it is covered by the recommended fruit, citrus, group 10-10 tolerance. For citrus oil, EPA revised the tolerance to 25 ppm and for cotton undelinted seed to 0.4 ppm. The reasons 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 hexythiazox including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox 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. Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal irritant, is negative for dermal sensitization and produces only mild eye irritation. Hexythiazox is associated with toxicity of the liver and adrenals following subchronic and chronic exposure to dogs, rats and mice, with the dog being the most sensitive species. The prenatal developmental studies in rabbits and rats and the two-generation reproduction study in rats showed no indication of increased susceptibility to in utero or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox. Reproductive toxicity was not observed. There is no concern for immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity following exposure to hexythiazox. The toxicology database for hexythiazox does not show any evidence of treatment-related effects on the immune system. Hexythiazox is classified as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans;” however, the weight of evidence indicates that assessing chronic risk using the chronic population adjusted dose will be protective for any potential carcinogenic effects. Since the effects seen in the study that serves as the basis for the chronic PAD occurred at doses substantially below the lowest dose that induced tumors, the chronic PAD is considered protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by hexythiazox 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: Hexythiazox. Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Amended Uses on Cotton and Citrus in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0338 or EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0339.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1—Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Hexythiazox for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment Exposure/scenario Point of departure and
  • uncertainty/safety factors
  • RfD, PAD, LOC for risk
  • assessment
  • Study and toxicological effects
    Acute dietary (All populations) No risk is expected from this exposure scenario as no hazard was identified in any toxicity study for this duration of exposure. Chronic dietary (All populations) NOAEL = 2.5 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • Chronic RfD = 0.025 mg/kg/day
  • cPAD = 0.025 mg/kg/day
  • 1-year toxicity feeding study—Dog
  • LOAEL = 12.5 mg/kg/day based on increased absolute and relative adrenal weights and associated adrenal histopathology.
  • Incidental oral short-term (1 to 30 days) and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • FQPA SF = 1x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 2-generation reproduction study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 180 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup body weight during lactation and delayed hair growth and/or eye opening, and decreased parental body-weight gain and increased absolute and relative liver, kidney, and adrenal weights.
  • Co-critical
  • 13-Week Oral Toxicity Study—Rat.
  • NOAEL = 5.5 mg/kg/day
  • LOAEL = 38 mg/kg/day, based on increased absolute and relative liver weights in both sexes, increased relative ovarian and kidney weights, and fatty degeneration of the adrenal zona fasciculata.
  • @397.5/257.6 mg/kg/day, decreased body-weight gain in females, slight swelling of hepatocytes in central zone (both sexes), increased incidence of glomerulonephrosis in males, increased adrenal weights.
  • Inhalation short-term (1 to 30 days) and
  • intermediate-term (1 to 6 months)
  • Oral study NOAEL = 30 mg/kg/day (inhalation absorption rate = 100%)
  • UFA = 10x
  • UFH = 10x
  • LOC for MOE = 100 2-generation reproduction study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 180 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup body weight during lactation and delayed hair growth and/or eye opening, and decreased parental body-weight gain and increased absolute and relative liver, kidney, and adrenal weights.
  • Co-Critical
  • 13-Week Feeding Study—Rat.
  • LOAEL = 38.1 mg/kg/day, based on increased absolute and relative liver weights in both sexes, increased relative ovarian and kidney weights, and fatty degeneration of the adrenal zona fasciculata.
  • Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation) Classification: “Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans”. Insufficient evidence to warrant a quantitative estimation of human risk using a cancer slope factor based on the common liver tumors (benign and malignant) observed only in high dose female mice, and benign mammary gland tumors of no biological significance, observed only in high dose male rats in the absence of mutagenic concerns. The chronic RfD is protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity of hexythiazox. FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).
    C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR 180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox 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 hexythiazox; 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 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-level residues, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and incorporated DEEM default processing factors when processing data were not available.

    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing cancer risk to hexythiazox. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.

    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for hexythiazox. Tolerance-level residues and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 4.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water. Since groundwater residues are not expected to exceed surface water residues, surface water residues were used in the dietary risk assessment. Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.

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

    Hexythiazox is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Ornamental plantings, lawns, recreational sites such as campgrounds and golf courses, turf, and fruit and nut trees in residential settings. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:

    Residential handler exposures are expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or inhalation routes of exposures. Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by residential applicators. Since hexythiazox does not pose a significant dermal risk, a quantitative dermal risk assessment was not performed and handler margins of exposure (MOE) were calculated for the inhalation route of exposure only.

    Both adults and children may be exposed to hexythiazox residues from contact with treated lawns or treated residential plants. Post-application exposures are expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) in duration for most exposure scenarios, and intermediate-term (1 to 6 months) in duration for soil ingestion only due to the aerobic soil metabolism half-life for hexythiazox. Adult post-application exposures were not assessed since no quantitative dermal risk assessment is needed for hexythiazox and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in outdoor settings. The exposure assessment for children included incidental oral exposure resulting from transfer of residues from the hands or objects to the mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil.

    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

    D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

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

    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal development studies in rabbits and rats and the two-generation reproduction study in rats showed no indication of increased susceptibility to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.

    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 hexythiazox is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

    iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox 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. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by hexythiazox.

    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, hexythiazox 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 hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 81% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years of age, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of hexythiazox is not expected.

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

    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,300 for children and 9,900 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

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

    Hexythiazox is currently registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.

    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,500 for children and 9,900 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit III.C.1.iii., EPA concluded that regulation based on the chronic reference dose will be protective for both chronic and carcinogenic risks. As noted in this unit, there are no chronic risks of concern.

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

    IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. This method is listed in the U.S. EPA Index of Residue Analytical methods under hexythiazox as method AMR-985-87.

    B. International Residue Limits

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

    The Codex has established MRLs for residues of hexythiazox on citrus, fruits but not for cotton. The Codex plant residue definition is for hexythiazox as opposed to the U.S. definition which includes hexythiazox plus metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety. The differences in U.S. and Codex residue definitions prohibits harmonization.

    C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    Although the petitioner requested an amended tolerance for citrus, dried pulp at 0.6, the Agency has determined that no such tolerance is necessary because that commodity is covered by the established citrus group 10-10 tolerance. The Agency is revising the tolerance for citrus oil to 25 ppm based on the following: By multiplying the citrus oil processing factor (104X) from the 2006 processing study (D334889, 07/03/2006, T. Bloem) by the highest average field trial (HAFT) residue for lemons (0.243 ppm) from the submitted citrus study since lemons are the citrus crop that produced the highest residues.

    As noted in its most recent crop group rulemaking in the Federal Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50617) (FRL-9354-3), EPA generally does not establish new tolerances under pre-existing crop groups that have been updated. EPA updated crop group 10 in 2010, making the new group 10-10. Therefore, EPA is establishing citrus fruit group tolerances for group 10-10, rather than crop group 10 as requested.

    The Agency is amending the tolerance for cotton, undelinted seed at 0.4 ppm based on the available cotton data that reflect a national use at the label specified 35 day pre-harvest internal (PHI) to calculate the 0.4 ppm tolerance.

    V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are amended for residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in or on citrus, oil at 25 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.6 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 15 ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.4 ppm. The current citrus, dried pulp tolerance is revoked because it is unnecessary due to the establishment of the fruit, citrus, group 10-10 tolerance.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends 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 22, 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 § 180.448: i. Add alphabetically the entries for “Cotton, gin byproducts” and “Cotton, undelinted seed” to the table in paragraph (a). ii. Remove the entry for “Citrus, dried pulp” from the table in paragraph (a). iii. Revise the entry for “Citrus, oil” in the table in paragraph (a). iv. Remove the entries for “Cotton, gin byproducts, CA and AZ only”, and “Cotton, undelinted seed, CA and AZ only” from the table in paragraph (c). v. Revise the entry for “Fruit, citrus group 10 (CA, AZ, TX only)” in the table in paragraph (c).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 180.448 Hexythiazox; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    *     Citrus, oil 25 *    *    *    *    *     Cotton, gin byproducts 15 Cotton, undelinted seed 0.4 *    *    *    *    *    

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. * * *

    Commodity Parts per million *    *    *    *    *     Fruit, citrus group 10-10 (CA, AZ, TX only) 0.6 *    *    *    *    *    
    [FR Doc. 2016-07661 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 13-49; FCC 16-24] Unlicensed—National Information Infrastructure, Order on Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document responds to seven petitions for reconsideration of certain rules adopted in the First Report and Order (First R&O) in this proceeding, the Commission amends its Part 15 rules governing the operation of unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices in the 5 GHz band. These rule changes are intended to make broadband technologies more widely available for consumers and businesses by temporarily increasing the in-band power limits and permanently increasing the out-of- band power limits for certain U-NII-3 band devices. The Commission also takes steps to maintain certain levels of interference protection for other authorized operations within the 5 GHz band.

    DATES:

    Effective May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aole Wilkins, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: [email protected], TTY (202) 418-2989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion & Order (MO&O), ET Docket No. 13-49, FCC 16-24, adopted March 1, 2015, and released March 2, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: 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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    Summary of Memorandum Opinion and Order A. U-NII-3 Band Proposals for Changes to the First R&O

    1. Prior to adoption of the First R&O, the FCC's rules permitted the certification of devices that operate in the 5.725-5.85 GHz (U-NII-3) band under two different rule sections (i.e. Sections 15.247 and 15.407). In some instances, and especially for devices that operate in point-to-point configurations with high gain antennas, the old Section 15.247 out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits were as much as 47 dB more permissive than the Section 15.407 OOBE limits and, therefore devices certified under the old limits were significantly more likely to create harmful interference to other operations. In the First R&O, the Commission adopted a consolidated set of rules for the 5.725-5.85 GHz band devices under the Section 15.407 U-NII rules to resolve interference issues to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) and other radar facilities in the adjacent band. In the First R&O, the Commission recognized that point-to-point systems utilizing high gain transmit antennas certified under the old Section 15.247 requirement may have to be modified to comply with the lower OOBE limit required for operation under Section 15.407. The Commission stated that manufacturers had the flexibility to determine how they should meet the lower OOBE limits, whether by reducing output power, decreasing the transmit antenna gain, or utilizing improved bandpass filters.

    2. In response to the First R&O, the Commission received several petitions for reconsideration of its decision. Petitioners, mainly manufacturers and operators of high gain point-to-point communication systems, ask that the Commission's decision to impose more restrictive OOBE limits for devices in the U-NII-3 band should either be reversed or modified. The petitions express concerns regarding increased equipment costs, sustainability of existing service, and diminished performance of devices in the band. The petitioners' state that the limits adopted in the First R&O will prevent remote communities from receiving access to critical services and will render required upgrades costly and unobtainable. Numerous comments were filed in general support of the petitions requesting modification of the new OOBE limits.

    3. Consensus Certification Proposal. This approach proposed multiple equipment certification requirements for point-to-point equipment intended to reduce the probability of harmful interference while minimizing burdens on manufacturers and users. Under this approach, users would verify that a device's location and transmission direction would not cause interference with TDWRs; allow equipment that supports dynamic frequency selection (DFS) in the U-NII-2C band to automatically allow increased emissions from the U-NII-3 band in frequency ranges where no radars are detected; and create a 5 km radius exclusion zone around each TDWR and prohibit the peak of a transmitter's antenna beam from intersecting with such exclusion zones.

    4. Ubiquiti Proposal. Under this approach, for transmitters operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band, all out-of-band emissions be limited to a level of −27 dBm/MHz at 75 MHz beyond the band edge, increasing linearly to 10 dBm/MHz at 25 MHz beyond the band edge, and from 25 MHz beyond the band edge, increasing linearly to a level of 17 dBm/MHz at the band edge.

    5. Joint Emissions Proposal. This approach closely resembled the Ubiquiti proposal, but would provide further relief from the OOBE limits in the 5 MHz closest to the band edge by allowing emissions to increase linearly to a maximum level of 27 dBm/MHz.

    6. Broadcom Proposal. This approach mimics the Ubiquiti and the Joint Emissions Proposals, but would roll off emissions to −17 dBm/MHz at 75 MHz beyond the band edge. Broadcom believes the change is necessary because of an artifact that occurs outside of the in-band wanted emissions in certain of their current model chips. These spurious emissions are unintentional artifacts in the design of their current chipsets and did not create a compliance issue until the UNII rules were modified in 2014. Broadcom asserts that the mask can be modified to accommodate their circumstance while continuing to provide the same level of interference protection to TDWRs.

    7. The Commission believes that the Joint Emissions Proposal best addresses the need for amended rules in the U-NII-3 band. It recognizes that, without further accommodation, point-to-point systems that utilize high gain transmit antennas with full permissible output power may not readily be able to comply with the OOBE limit adopted in the First R&O. Based on the record, in order for today's systems to suppress emissions to the degree required by the existing OOBE limits, they would require prohibitively expensive equipment modifications which would add an undue amount of weight to the devices. The Commission believes that the rules we are adopting here will allow point-to-point systems to operate, while avoiding harmful out of band interference, without excessive difficulty or cost. Unlike the Consensus Certification Proposal, which would apply different OOBE requirements based on a variety of situations, including the location of each installation relative to TDWRs, the approach adopted here will provide a single, consistent OOBE requirement for all equipment. Also unlike the Consensus Certification Proposal, the chosen approach will also avoid the need for onerous oversight by the Commission and it will, ultimately, better protect TDWRs against harmful interference because it is simpler to administer and enforce at the certification level. The Commission does not believe that Broadcom's difficulty in meeting the new limits for its current product is sufficient reason to further relax the OOBE limits. Instead, the Commission provides relief to all manufacturers by allowing some extra time to certify and to bring newly compliant devices into the marketplace.

    8. As demonstrated in Ubiquiti's ex parte presentation, the proposed emission limits closely reflect the emissions mask seen in devices that are currently being sold, and thus the manufacturers may have a reduced need to undergo extensive redesigns to their equipment. Additionally, this revision should provide relief for wireless Internet service providers (WISPSs) and operators of long range point-to-point U-NII-3 equipment by reducing the need to redesign their networks because manufacturers will be able to use the rules adopted herein to design equipment that achieves link distances comparable to what they were able to achieve with the old rules. The Commission therefore adds new language for Section 15.407 (b)(4) that would provide relief from the OOBE limits adopted in the First R&O by permitting emissions to roll off linearly from 27 dBm/MHz at the band edge to a level of 15.6 dBm/MHz at 5 MHz from the band edge, then decreasing linearly to 10 dBm/MHz at 25 MHz from the band edge and continue to decrease linearly to a level of −27 dBm/MHz at all frequencies more than 75 MHz from band edge. The Commission adopts additional provisions in the first 5 MHz outside of the band edge because manufacturers have sufficiently demonstrated their inability to suppress their emissions to meet the Ubiquiti Proposal mask within this region. This approach will offer the needed relief to manufacturers, but will still provide a level of interference protection to adjacent band services that is greater than that provided in Section 15.247. This approach offers relief for users and manufacturers by relaxing the OOBE roll-off requirement outside of the TDWR band while maintaining the same level of interference protection within the TDWR band as specified under the rules the Commission adopted in the First R&O.

    B. Association of Global Automakers Petition

    9. Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) Systems are designed to operate under the FCC provisions for the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) radio service in the 5.85-5.925 GHz band. Prior to the adoption of the First R&O, unlicensed devices were permitted in the adjacent 5.725-5.85 GHz band under two different rules, Sections 15.247 and 15.407. The Commission, in the First R&O, consolidated the rules for devices operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band and imposed the more stringent Section 15.407 OOBE limits, which provide more protection from interference to adjacent band incumbent spectrum users.

    10. In its petition for reconsideration, the Association of Global Automakers, Inc. (Global) requests that the Commission suspend or reverse key decisions made in the First R&O because it failed to explain how its decision to allow additional, higher-powered, unlicensed U-NII devices to operate in the 5 GHz band would not cause harmful interference to previously-authorized DSRC operations. It claims that substantial evidence suggests that harmful interference will likely result to DSRC operations from expanded “high power Wi-Fi” operations in the 5 GHz band. Global further states that the FCC should explain what steps the agency will take to protect DSRC operations against that harmful interference; the Commission should adopt procedures that will swiftly and effectively resolve any harmful interference that may subsequently occur to DSRC from U-NII devices; and if the FCC expects that there will be some level of interference between these adjacent-band operations, the FCC should clarify what level of interference will be acceptable and what course of action will be available to DSRC operators to protect their networks from unacceptable levels of interference. The majority of parties that responded to Global's petition were opposed to reversing the decisions that the Commission made in the First R&O regarding the U-NII-3 band.

    11. The Commission rejects Global's Request and declines to reverse or suspend its decision to consolidate the rules for unlicensed devices operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band under one rule section. The Commission finds that DSRC systems will receive greater interference protection under the emission mask adopted in this MO&O than was provided under the old rules. In the First R&O the Commission explained that higher powered operations in the 5.725- 5.85 GHz band are already permitted to operate under Section 15.247, and that adopting more stringent limits for the newly modified Section 15.407 rules would reduce the OOBE from each U-NII-3 device and, in turn, should reduce the aggregate emissions from these devices. Therefore, the decisions made in the First R&O with respect to U-NII-3 did not result in an expansion of use but, instead, provided increased protection for systems operating in the adjacent bands, such as DSRC systems and TDWRs. Even with the slight relaxation of the U-NII-3 OOBE limit that are being adopted in this MO&O, the allowed emissions from U-NII devices into the DSRC band will still be held to a lower limit than what was permitted by Section 15.247 prior to the adoption of the First R&O. This in turn will result in less potential interference to ITS operating in the adjacent band because the per device and aggregate emissions in the band will be reduced. Additionally, the Commission believes the additional level of protection afforded to DSRC systems is sufficient because, unlike the TDWR, the DSRC systems were not experiencing interference problems previously. Given that the new rules increase protections for the ITS systems, the Commission does not consider additional protections from adjacent band signals to be necessary.

    C. EchoStar Proposal

    12. Prior to adoption of the First R&O, the 5.15-5.25 GHz (U-NII-1) band had a very low peak transmitter conducted output power limit of 50 mW, and U-NII operations were restricted to indoor only operations. In the First R&O, the Commission adopted rules to remove the indoor-only restriction and increased the permitted power for these devices in order to increase the utility of the U-NII-1 band and to accommodate the next generation of Wi-Fi technology. Specifically, under the new rules all client devices in the U-NII-1 band may now operate at conducted power levels up to 250 mW without distinction as to whether devices are located indoors or outdoors. The new rules permit Access Points to operate in the U-NII-1 band at conducted power levels up to 1 Watt if they use antennas that limit gain in the upward direction, or if they are located indoors. Client devices are permitted to operate in the U-NII-1 band without limiting the antenna gain in the vertical direction because they typically represent mobile or portable devices, such as handsets, laptops, and tablets. These devices are not typically installed in permanent outdoor locations, and due to their mobile nature the antenna gain in any particular direction cannot be guaranteed. Finally, many client devices incorporate power control features that encourage the device to use as little power as necessary to establish and maintain the communications link. In consideration of all of these factors, the Commission anticipated a negligible interference potential associated with client devices that operate as described and, as a result, determined that the antenna requirements described above for access points were not necessary for client devices.

    13. EchoStar (ETC) argues that the First R&O is unclear regarding the power limit applicable to its set-top boxes that serve as client devices for indoor wireless access points and operate in the U-NII-1 band (5.15-5.25 GHz). ETC further asks the Commission to permit such set-top boxes to operate at the maximum power level afforded under new Section 15.407(a)(1)(ii) (i.e., 1 Watt). ETC states that it has integrated Wi-Fi technologies into its set-top boxes and systems to facilitate the distribution of programming within a customer location, at faster speeds than those achievable via in-home cable connections. By including an access point as part of the customer's installation, the system effectively creates a private Wi-Fi network in the home. ETC claims that it is essential that they be permitted to operate at the same maximum power levels that Part 15 affords to facilitate access points and other indoor devices that operate in an entirely stationary mode.

    14. ETC stated in its petition that while these devices are not usually attached to anything physically, the box can only operate while sitting still and, generally cannot be moved throughout the home without risking a degradation or loss of video service. As such, the box is functionally identical to an indoor access point, and therefore, the interference considerations are the same for both. Thus, ETC claims there is no reason not to permit both types of devices to transmit at a maximum power level of 1 Watt when operating in the U-NII-1 band. Several parties supported ETC's request for a clarification of the rules.

    15. The Commission clarifies that in the First R&O it adopted a power limit of 250 mW for all client devices, regardless of whether they are fixed, mobile, or portable. While the Commission noted that client devices are “typically mobile or portable,” it also made clear that the new 250 mW power limit applies to “any client device which operates under control of an access point.” To avoid further confusion, the Commission on reconsideration modifies Section 15.407(a)(1)(iv) by deleting the words “mobile and portable”.

    16. In response to ETC's recommendation to adopt rules that allow U-NII-1 band indoor set-top boxes or any other type of client devices to operate at 1 Watt, the same power levels as U-NII-1 band access points, the Commission declines to do so. As a point of clarification, the Commission has allowed set-top boxes that serve as access points to operate up to 1 Watt based on the rationale that access points generally remain in one location. However, it has treated client devices as subject to the 250 mW limit because it is generally more difficult to control the location and use of these devices (i.e., client devices can be used outdoors). Some commenters have suggested that a possible point of distinction between fixed and mobile client devices could be the need for AC power. The Commission notes, however, that many mobile devices can operate from AC power as an alternative to battery power. While it understands from Echostar's petition that their particular set-top box is not designed to be moved throughout the home, the Commission is not convinced that this can be ensured on a general basis for all “fixed” client devices and there is no reliable way to determine whether or not a client device will be positioned indoors or outdoors.

    17. It is unclear from Echostar's petition that its set top box qualifies as an access point and therefore would be permitted to operate at 1 W. This will depend on the specific characteristics of the device as presented through the equipment authorization process. Echostar and any other entity can, therefore, seek approval, at the time it files for equipment authorization, for a set-top box or other such device to operate up to 1 Watt by making a showing that it serves as an access point. However, the Commission is not convinced of the need to increase the in-band power levels for set-top boxes, and if consumers desire to increase the range between the access point and the set-top boxes, repeaters are widely available at commercially reasonable prices for this purpose. The Commission concludes that 250 mW is adequate for most client device installations. For the aforementioned reasons, the Commission will continue to limit client devices in the U-NII-1 band to operating at conducted power levels up to 250 mW with a maximum PSD level of 11dBm/MHz using a transmit antenna with a maximum gain of 6 dBi. It continues to impose this limit on client devices, and without distinction as to whether devices are located indoors or outdoors.

    D. Proposals To Increase OOBE in Restricted Bands 5.091-5.15 GHz

    18. Section 15.205 identifies a number of restricted bands in which low power, non-licensed transmitters are not allowed to place any portion of their fundamental emission because of potential interference to sensitive radio communications such as commercial aviation communications and navigation, radio astronomy, search and rescue operations, and other critical government radio services. Additionally, unwanted emissions from non-licensed transmitters that fall into restricted bands must comply with the general radiated emission limits in Section 15.209. The 5.091-5.15 GHz band falls within the larger 4.5-5.15 GHz restricted band, as specified in Section 15.205(a).

    19. The 5.091-5.15 GHz band is allocated to the Aeronautical Mobile Service (AMS) on a primary basis for Federal and non-Federal use, including aeronautical fixed communications; Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT), restricted to 52 designated flight test areas and additional locations authorized for flight testing on a case-by-case basis; and the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) limited to feeder links for non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite systems in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS).

    20. The Wireless Internet Service Provider Association (WISPA) et al. supports relaxing the Section 15.205 provisions between 5.091 GHz and 5.15 GHz by 1dB for every dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi, provided that the antenna is oriented at 30 degrees or less above the horizon. Fastback proposes to change the restricted band at 4.5-5.15 GHz to end at 5.091 GHz, thus allowing higher out of band emissions (up to -17 dBm/MHz) from U-NII-1 devices into the 5.091-5.15 GHz portion. It states that adopting its proposed recommendations would enable an increase in EIRP for U-NII-1 point-to-point links, corresponding to an increased communication range of two hundred and fifty percent.

    21. The Commission declines to increase the allowable emissions from U-NII band devices into the restricted band below 5.15 GHz. The restricted bands were created to protect radio communications services that are sensitive to interference and that provide critical benefits to public safety and national security. WISPA and Fastback have not offered any analysis showing that increasing the emissions limit in this restricted band would not create an unacceptable risk of interference in the restricted band. Moreover, to the extent that WISPA and Fastback make their proposals in order to increase the utilization of the U-NII-1 band, the Commission observes that it other rule revisions adopted in this order accomplish this purpose, by removing the restriction to indoor operation and increasing the permitted power level for U-NII-1 devices. The emission limits into the adjacent restricted band from U-NII-1 devices may not provide all of the benefits that some equipment suppliers desire, and some equipment manufacturers may find that they need to reduce power below the level permitted under the rules in order to achieve compliance with the OOBE limit below 5.15 GHz. However, the removal of the indoor restriction and the increase in power permitted in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band provide greater opportunities than were available before. Other parts of the 5 GHz band can accommodate higher powered operation where it may not be possible to achieve the desired power level and compliance with the OOBE limit at 5.15—5.25 GHz.

    E. Proposals To Extend the Transition Period

    22. The Commission adopted rules requiring that, 12 months after the effective date of the First R&O (June 2, 2015), applications for certification of 5 GHz devices must meet the new and modified rules. Additionally, the Commission required that the manufacture, marketing, sale and importation into the United States of devices that did not meet the new or modified rules must cease two years after the effective date of the rules adopted in the First R&O (June 2, 2016). While the Commission was sympathetic to the arguments of commenters that the more restrictive unwanted emission limits for digital modulation devices may present design challenges for some manufacturers, the Commission ultimately found that it was in the public interest to implement the changes as soon as possible to eliminate the potential of harmful interference to TDWRs.

    23. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (MSI) asks that the Commission reconsider its requirement that the manufacture, marketing, sale and importation into the United States of digitally modulated and hybrid devices certified under Section 15.247 cease operating in the 5.725- 5.850 GHz U-NII-3 band two years after the effective date of the First R&O. MSI estimates that almost all of its nearly 200 enterprise WLAN products and access points will require reengineering to comply with the more stringent OOBE requirements and believes this undertaking cannot be completed in two years. MSI recommends a five-year transition, but they believe it is unnecessary and arbitrary to impose any time limit on the continued sale of pre-approved devices, as the new certification obligations adopted by the Commission will facilitate a prompt transition on their own. Similarly, Cambium requests that the one-year and two-year deadlines be extended to three years for equipment not yet certified and the two-year deadline be eliminated for product models certified under the old rules. They claim that this will allow manufacturers a reasonable timeframe to address design issues with meeting new requirements.

    24. Cisco raises no objection to a short extension of the transition deadlines if manufacturers can make a compelling case that it is not possible to redesign and re-certify equipment with a reasonable effort, but given the central role U-NII-3 equipment has played in causing interference to TDWR, any extension that delays the introduction of enhanced security features should be as brief as possible. MSI clarifies that its petition was not intended to extend the deadline for introduction of enhanced security features to previously certified devices, but to limit the period of time in which equipment previously certified under the legacy rules could continue to be manufactured and marketed. Broadcom claims that enterprise and home router devices that use its chipsets, which are generally operated indoors using a lower gain antenna, have less potential to cause interference than the point-to-point systems operating outdoors that are using high-gain antennas that prompted the industry emission limits proposal adopted in this proceeding. Broadcom states that although it would be able to meet the emission limits we adopted above, it would need more time to bring their devices into compliance.

    25. The Commission modifies the dates by which the certification, manufacture, marketing, sale and importation into the United States of U-NII-3 band devices that do not meet the modified emission limits adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order must cease. The Commission modifies Section 15.407(b)(4) to permit manufacturers of devices certified before March 2, 2017 with antenna gain greater than 10 dBi to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section 15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing, sale and importing of devices certified under this alternative must cease by March 2, 2018. The Commission further modify Section 15.407(b)(4) to permit manufacturers of devices certified before March 2, 2018 with an antenna gain of 10 dBi or less to demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in Section 15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing, sale and importing of devices certified under this alternative must cease before March 2, 2020. The Commission has already issued two orders that have provided a 10-month extension that permitted manufacturers to continue to certify devices under the old rules until March 2, 2016. Here, the Commission does not further extend the transition provisions in Section 15.37(h) allowing certification and marketing under the old rules, but rather implement a phased implementation of only the out-of-band limits in Section 15.407.

    26. The Commission understands Cisco's concerns and agrees that manufacturers should be granted an extension of time only if they cannot comply with the modified rules with reasonable effort and that the time extension should not be indefinite. The Commission recognizes that during the years leading up to the rule change, the industry had made a significant investment in the research, design, and development of new product lines. The Commission also recognizes that manufacturers have made a significant effort to design compliant equipment but are not able to reasonably suppress their OOBEs without significantly reducing the in-band power and thereby reducing the range of their devices. The majority of products that are effected, operate with relatively low power and employ antenna gains of less than 10dBi. The Commission understands that the typical design cycle for enterprise and home routers can last two to three years and that there is no simple solution for manufacturers to swiftly redesign compliant products before the transition period deadlines. Therefore, the Commission will provide a slightly longer transition period for devices that operate a 10 dBi or lower antenna. The Commission notes that these devices tend to present a lower risk of harmful interference because they are typically lower powered and are installed indoor. The Commission recognizes that in theory, harmful interference could occur from an enterprise or home access point, however it has not observed this in practice. In practice, harmful interference to the TDWR was typically caused by long-range devices that were unlawfully modified and typically operated with antenna gains of 15 dBi and above. The devices that employ higher gain antennas are typically operated by service providers for the purposes of wireless back haul and are installed in outdoor environments. The Commission therefore concludes that in the case of devices that employ an antenna with a gain of 10 dBi or less, appropriate deadlines are March 2, 2018 for certification, and March 2, 2020 as the cut-off for devices that can be imported or marketed within the United States under the old emission limits.

    27. The Commission believes these extensions will give manufacturers and vendors sufficient time to come into compliance with the new emission limits. The Commission does not believe a short extension of the deadlines will represent a significant risk of harmful interference for the TDWR. The new certification and marketing deadlines apply to devices that operate in the U-NII-3 band.

    28. The Commission notes that the ultimate purpose of the transition date is to expediently reduce the threat of harmful interference to the TDWR and other radar facilities from devices on the market that were easily and unlawfully modified. However, the Commission recognizes that manufacturers will need additional time to design new product lines that comply with the new rules. Extending the emission limit deadlines will permit manufacturers to plan their research and design activities to comply with the outcome of our actions here. Permitting this extended period will provide economic relief by allowing manufacturers to continue to sell through remaining inventory. The Commission has already provided more time than originally intended to bring these devices into compliance and no further extensions are contemplated.

    Procedural Matters

    29. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 2 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 3 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.4 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).5 The adopted rules pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications devices. The appropriate small business size standard is that which the SBA has established for radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” 6 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees.7 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 784 had fewer than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100 employees.8 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

    1 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

    2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    3 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    4 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”

    5 15 U.S.C. 632.

    6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.

    7 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

    8http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.

    30. Pursuant to the RFA, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket No. 13-49.9 There were no public comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA, and the Commission concluded in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in the First Report and Order (First R&O) 10 that the rules adopted in the First R&O do not add substantial additional compliance burden on small businesses. For the reasons described below, the Commission now certify that the policies and rules adopted in the present Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    9See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band in ET Docket No. 13-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd. 1769 (2013) (NPRM).

    10See Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5GHZ Band, ET Docket 13-49, 29 FCC Rcd 4127 (2014) (First R&O).

    31. In the First R&O, the Commission prepared a FRFA detailing the ways in which the Commission sought to minimize the impact of the new regulations on small businesses.11 The rule change adopted in this MO&O is merely a modification of the rule adopted in the First R&O that will provide relief for those entities that are required to comply with rules adopted in the First R&O and modified herein. Therefore, the Commission certify pursuant to the RFA that the final rule adopted in this order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.12

    11See First R&O at 4165-4168.

    12See 5 U.S.C. 605 (b).

    32. The Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including a copy of this final Regulatory Flexibility Certification,13 in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the MO&O and this final certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.14

    13See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    14See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    33. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document contains no new or modified information collection requirement that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    34. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Ordering Clauses

    35. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302a, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), this Memorandum Opinion and Order IS ADOPTED and Part 15 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR. Part 15, IS AMENDED. The revisions will be effective May 6, 2016 of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

    36. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e) 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), and 405, the petitions for reconsideration addressed ARE GRANTED, to the extent indicated above, and otherwise ARE DENIED.

    37. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

    Communications equipment.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 15 as follows:

    PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.

    2. Section 15.407 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
    § 15.407 General technical requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iv) For client devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, the maximum conducted output power over the frequency band of operation shall not exceed 250 mW provided the maximum antenna gain does not exceed 6 dBi. In addition, the maximum power spectral density shall not exceed 11 dBm in any 1 megahertz band. If transmitting antennas of directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, both the maximum conducted output power and the maximum power spectral density shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.

    (b) * * *

    (4) For transmitters operating in the 5.725-5.85 GHz band:

    (i) All emissions shall be limited to a level of −27 dBm/MHz at 75 MHz or more above or below the band edge increasing linearly to 10 dBm/MHz at 25 MHz above or below the band edge, and from 25 MHz above or below the band edge increasing linearly to a level of 15.6 dBm/MHz at 5 MHz above or below the band edge, and from 5 MHz above or below the band edge increasing linearly to a level of 27 dBm/MHz at the band edge.

    (ii) Devices certified before March 2, 2017 with antenna gain greater than 10 dBi may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in § 15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing and importing of devices certified under this alternative must cease by March 2, 2018. Devices certified before March 2, 2018 with antenna gain of 10 dBi or less may demonstrate compliance with the emission limits in § 15.247(d), but manufacturing, marketing and importing of devices certified under this alternative must cease before March 2, 2020.

    [FR Doc. 2016-07847 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    This document denies petitions for reconsideration submitted by bus manufacturers IC Bus, LLC (IC Bus), Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler Trucks) and Prevost, concerning a November 25, 2013 final rule requiring seat belts on large buses. IC Bus and Daimler Trucks petitioned to modify the definition of “over-the-road bus” specified in the final rule. NHTSA is denying these petitions because any change to the definition may serve to reduce the standard's applicability, contrary to Congressional and NHTSA intent, and the definition of “over-the-road bus” is sufficiently clear. Prevost petitioned to revise the seat belt anchorage strength requirements for last row seats having no passenger seating behind them. NHTSA is denying this petition primarily because the requested force level reduction may set strength levels below an acceptable level for a dynamic environment.

    DATES:

    April 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For non-legal issues: Mr. Vinay Nagabhushana, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-1452. Facsimile: (202) 493-2739.

    For legal issues: Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document denies petitions for reconsideration of a November 25, 2013 final rule requiring seat belts on large buses (78 FR 70416). We first deny the petitions submitted by bus manufacturers IC Bus and Daimler Trucks to modify the definition of “over-the-road bus” specified in the final rule. These petitions are denied because any change to the definition may serve to reduce the standard's applicability, contrary to Congressional intent and the safety need addressed by the rule, and the current definition of “over-the-road bus” is sufficiently clear as to which buses must be equipped with seat belts. Second, this document denies a petition for reconsideration from bus manufacturer Prevost to revise the seat belt anchorage strength requirements for last row seats having no passenger seating behind them. This petition is denied because, as explained in the 2013 final rule, the agency is concerned about the interchangeability of these seats with those equipped with integrated seat belts and the risk that a seat that is certified to a lesser requirement could be moved to a row that has passenger seats behind it. Further, we deny the petition because the requested force level reduction may set strength levels below an acceptable level for a dynamic environment.

    I. Motorcoach Definition

    On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), which incorporates the “Motorcoach Enhanced Safety Act of 2012” in subtitle G. Section 32703(a) of this legislation calls for prescribing regulations for seat belts at all designated seating positions in “motorcoaches.” Section 32702(6) states that “[t]he term `motorcoach' has the meaning given the term `over-the-road bus' in section 3038(a)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5310 note)” with two specific exceptions.1 Section 3038(a)(3) (49 U.S.C. 5310 note) defines the term “over-the-road bus” as a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.2

    1 The two exceptions are buses used for public transportation provided by, or on behalf of, a public transportation agency, and school buses.

    2 The definition also appears in 49 CFR 37.3.

    On November 25, 2013, NHTSA issued a final rule on occupant protection in large buses, fulfilling the statutory mandate in section 32703(a) of MAP-21. The 2013 final rule amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” to require lap/shoulder seat belts for each passenger seating position in all new over-the road buses regardless of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). In the final rule, consistent with MAP-21, NHTSA incorporated the term “over-the-road bus” into FMVSS No. 208 and the definition for the term set forth in MAP-21. Further, finding a safety need to improve occupant protection for passengers on other large buses, the agency also required seat belts in new buses, other than over-the road buses, with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kilograms (kg) (26,000 pounds (lb)).3

    3 The exceptions in the final rule are non-over-the-road transit buses, school buses, prison buses and perimeter seating buses.

    Petitions for Reconsideration

    In response to the November 25, 2013 final rule, the agency received petitions for reconsideration requesting the agency further define the term “over-the road bus” with dimensional specificity and/or with other bus attributes. IC Bus stated that the current definition of over-the-road bus is ambiguous and the terms “elevated passenger deck” and “baggage compartment” are undefined and subject to interpretation. IC Bus petitioned the agency to—

    • modify the definition such that “over the road bus means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck to accommodate a baggage compartment underneath, except a school bus,” and

    • define the term “elevated passenger deck” based on physical attributes of the bus such as passenger compartment floor height as measured from the ground (scaled for different GVWR) or define a passenger compartment floor height requirement with respect to some specific vehicle reference point.

    Daimler Trucks also petitioned the agency to modify the definition of over-the road bus to include objective dimensional criteria for the elevated passenger deck, such as floor height from the ground (variable for different GVWR), and also to define baggage compartment in terms of volume per seating position.

    Agency Response

    The petitioners did not provide information supporting the requested action. They made broad suggestions as to how the definition of over-the-road bus might be quantified, but specific criteria and supporting data were lacking in the submissions. The petitioners did not provide data on the floor height or luggage compartment volume for any bus body type. They did not discuss what floor height or luggage compartment volume should be used to distinguish an over-the-road bus from other buses, and the basis for the criterion.

    NHTSA has limited discretion regarding the “motorcoach” definition and the application of the November 2013 final rule. Section 32702(6) of MAP-21 precisely defines the meaning of the term “motorcoach,” incorporating the “over-the-road bus” definition used in 49 U.S.C. 5310 note (which the petitioners seek to change). Further, section 32703(a) requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations requiring safety belts to be installed in motorcoaches at each designated seating position.” We note that buses are built for different purposes to different specifications, with varying floor height, floor length, compartment sizes, etc. Adding dimensional limits to the bus attributes as the petitioners suggest would reduce the number of vehicles fitting under the definition, which in turn would reduce the number of buses that would be required to have seat belts. The agency is concerned that such a reduction in the number of buses subject to the seat belt requirement would be contrary to Congress's intent to enhance the safety of buses used for passenger transport for compensation.4 MAP-21 specified the over-the-road bus definition to be used by the agency, without regard to vehicle weight and without indicating any additional specificity in regards to floor height or luggage compartment volume.

    4 Section 32702(7) of MAP-21 defines “motorcoach services” as “passenger transportation by motorcoach for compensation.”

    Additionally, NHTSA does not believe that the requested action is needed to clarify the application of the seat belt requirement. The applicability of the requirement is quite clear. As previously discussed, all buses with a GVWR greater than 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) must have seat belts.5 For buses with GVWRs of 11,793 kg (26,000 lb) or less, if the vehicle has “an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment,” it must have seat belts.

    5 See footnote 3, supra, for exceptions.

    We believe that a bus manufacturer can determine whether the vehicle they manufacture must have seat belts, based on the vehicle's GVWR and whether the bus has a luggage compartment under any part of the passenger deck. A bus that does not fit the definition is one without a luggage-carrying compartment under any part of the passenger deck.

    Based on the above, the agency declines the petitioners' request to modify the definition of over-the-road bus.

    II. Reduced Anchorage Strength for Last Row Seats

    As part of the motorcoach seat belt requirements, the agency specified that the seat belt assembly anchorages must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210, “Seat belt assembly anchorages,” to ensure effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. Further, the rule required that the seat belt anchorages must be integrated to the seat structure, except for the belt anchorages in the last row of the coach (if there is no wheelchair position or side emergency door behind these seats) and in the driver seating position. For the excluded seats in the last row, the final rule provided manufacturers the option of either having an integrated seat belt or attaching the seat belt anchorages to the bus side or back structure, as such placement would not impede ingress or egress of passengers in the coach.

    Petition for Reconsideration

    In response to the final rule, Prevost petitioned asking for reduced “seat retention” requirements for last row seats where there is no possibility of any passengers being behind them. Prevost is concerned that “the very last seats are secured over a thin metal bulkhead which did not require being very rigid when there were no seat belts” 6 and believes that this bulkhead will require reinforcement. It claimed that “[a]ny strength requirement is transmitted into added weight which in turn transferred into fuel consumption.” The petitioner argued that FMVSS No. 210 would be applicable to any other seats in the motorcoach where there would be combined belted occupant and inertial loading of the seat plus loading from the unbelted occupant behind, but for last row seats, there is no possibility of occupant loading from behind so the FMVSS No. 210 load should be reduced. No supporting data was provided in the petition.

    6 Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0121-005.

    Agency Response

    The agency has carefully considered the petitioner's request to reduce the seat belt anchorage forces for the subject seats. We are denying the request for the reasons explained below.

    We first note that Prevost's petition is essentially a repeat of the comments it made to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 7 preceding the final rule. The agency responded to that comment in the preamble of the final rule as follows:

    7 75 FR 50958 (August 18, 2010).

    We are unable to agree to Prevost's suggestion that the strength requirements be adjusted (reduced) for seats where there are no other seats behind it (and therefore no unbelted passengers seated behind it). We are aware that some operators of covered buses have changed the passenger seating configuration from that set by the factory or have removed and reinstalled seats. If “weaker” seats are moved after the factory installation to a position that had a passenger seat behind it, the weaker seat would not provide the performance required by FMVSS No. 210. Furthermore, this final rule provides some of the flexibility Prevost seeks. Under this final rule, seats with no other seats behind them are not required to have the lap/shoulder belt anchorages attached to the seat structure. For these seats, the lap/shoulder belt anchorages can be attached directly to the vehicle structure. (78 FR at 70455)

    Consistent with our final rule response, we remain concerned about the interchangeability of the seats with integrated seat belts, particularly in consideration of the long life of these vehicles (20+ years) and subsequent sales to operators that may need to reconfigure seating. If the operator moved the reduced-strength seat to a position that had a passenger seat behind it, the moved seat will not have the characteristics needed to withstand the loading from the aft passengers. If the reduced-strength seat were in a position that had a storage space behind it, loose items may create forward loading in a crash, similarly to rear occupant loading. The petitioner did not address this point. Similarly, no information or analysis was provided to suggest a value by which the seat belt anchorage strength requirement should be reduced.

    The agency is not convinced of the merits of lowering the strength requirement per se. NHTSA conducted a full scale 48 kilometers per hour (km/h) (30 miles per hour) crash test of a 2000 Model Year MCI 102EL3 Renaissance motorcoach (capacity of 54 passengers seats). Post-test examination of the bus 8 found shoulder belt D-ring excursion for one of the seats (seating position 11R). The top bolt of the D-ring shoulder belt mount attached to the seat back by two bolts sheared resulting in forward excursion of the D-ring. This was a row of 7G Amaya seats with two 50th percentile dummies restrained with lap/shoulder belts. There was no added reinforcement to the floor or to the side structure and no occupant loading from behind. This seat design passed the FMVSS No. 210 force requirements in our static pull tests. Although the D-ring mount failure did not result in dummy contact with the seats in front of them or result in high injury values, it suggests that the dynamic loading was sufficient to cause partial failure of the torso anchorage hardware without any loading from dummies in the row behind. Thus, the agency is concerned that any reduction in the seat belt loading below the FMVSS No. 210 level may reduce the torso anchorage strength to an unacceptable level.

    8 Figure 7 in Technical Report DOT HS 813 335, Docket NHTSA-2013-0121.

    In addition, data indicate that the last row of seats may be subject to loading unique to the rear of the bus. The vehicle accelerometer data from the full scale crash test were suggestive of forward flexing and dynamic rebound near the rear wall of the passenger compartment, compared to the front of the passenger compartment.9 The static FMVSS No. 210 test cannot account for the dynamic forward displacement and rebound of the vehicle structure to which the seat or seat belt may be anchored and any weakening of the attachments that may result from such dynamic phenomena. Thus, reducing the anchorage strength requirements for this last row of seats may set strength levels below an acceptable level for a dynamic environment.

    9 The maximum dynamic deflection near the front of the passenger compartment was 1,727 mm (68 inches) and the maximum dynamic displacement near the rear wall was 1,930 mm (76 inches). The rear wall separates the engine compartment in large over-the-road buses and in other buses from the cargo compartment.

    In its petition, Prevost states that reducing the strength requirement of FMVSS No. 210 for last row seats would result in a weight reduction and fuel savings. The agency is not convinced that there would be a significant weight reduction or fuel savings. Prevost did not provide information substantiating its claims, such as data on the thickness changes to the metal bulkhead (for example) required to secure seat belts designed to comply with the FMVSS No. 210 requirements compared to current designs.

    Further, the final rule permits—rather than requires—manufacturers to attach the seat belts to the vehicle structure for last-row seats. In the final rule, NHTSA stated that “[l]ap/shoulder belt equipped seats that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210 are available in the U.S. that are equivalent in weight to the European seats.” (78 FR at 70460.) We concluded that, depending on the efficiency of the structural design, there would be little or no weight penalty associated with the structural changes needed to meet FMVSS No. 210. Thus, the petitioner could use the integrated seat belt design for the last row seats if attaching the belt to the bus rear wall is problematic. Regardless, we emphasize that the petitioners have not shown that there will be a weight penalty for seat belt anchorages integrated into the vehicle structure. The increased flexibility of attachment to the vehicle rather than the seat has expanded the opportunity for efficient, innovative and practicable designs for manufacturers choosing to attach the belts to the vehicle structure.

    For the reasons stated above, NHTSA hereby denies all petitions for reconsideration of the November 25, 2013 final rule amending FMVSS No. 208.

    Authority:

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

    Issued on: March 31, 2016. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07828 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1201 [Docket No. EP 720] Accounting and Reporting of Business Combinations, Security Investments, Comprehensive Income, Derivative Instruments, and Hedging Activities AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) is adopting final rules that update the accounting and reporting requirements in its Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) for Class I Railroads so that they are more consistent with current generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Board is also revising the schedules and instructions for the Annual Report for Class I Railroads (R-1 or Form R-1) to better meet regulatory requirements and industry needs.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA), Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, authorizes the Board, in 49 U.S.C. 11142, to prescribe a uniform accounting system for rail carriers subject to our jurisdiction and, in 49 U.S.C. 11161, to maintain cost accounting rules for rail carriers.1 Sections 11142 and 11161 both require the Board to conform its accounting rules to GAAP “[t]o the maximum extent practicable.” The USOA is set forth in the Board's regulations at 49 CFR part 1201—Subpart A. The USOA is used by the Class I Railroads 2 to comply with their statutory requirement to provide the Board an annual report, known as the R-1 report, that contains information about their finances and operating statistics. 49 U.S.C. 11145(b)(1) and 49 CFR 1241.11.

    1 The Board has broad economic oversight of railroads, 49 U.S.C. 10101-11908, and prescribes a uniform accounting system for rail carriers to use for regulatory purposes, 49 U.S.C. 11141-43, 11161-64; 49 CFR parts 1200-1201. In addition, the Board requires Class I railroads to submit quarterly and annual reports containing financial and operating statistics, including employment and traffic data. 49 U.S.C. 11145; 49 CFR 1241-1246, 1248.

    2 The Board designates three classes of freight railroads based upon their operating revenues, for three consecutive years, in 1991 dollars, using the following scale: Class I—$250 million or more; Class II—less than $250 million but more than $20 million; and Class III—$20 million or less. These operating revenue thresholds are adjusted annually for inflation. 49 CFR pt. 1201, 1-1. Adjusted for inflation, the revenue threshold for a Class I rail carrier using 2014 data is $475,754,803. Today, there are seven Class I carriers.

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking served on July 8, 2015 (NPR), the Board proposed to make a number of changes to the USOA. First, the Board noted that the existing USOA does not specifically address the proper accounting and reporting for changes in the fair value of certain security investments, derivative instruments, and hedging activities, nor does it contain specific accounts to record amounts related to items of Other Comprehensive Income or provide a format to display comprehensive income in the Form R-1. Without specific instructions and accounts for recording and reporting these transactions and events, inconsistent and incomplete accounting would result. Thus, the Board proposed to amend its USOA and Form R-1 to account for those types of transactions and events. Specifically, the Board proposed updating the USOA to provide for: (1) Fair value presentation of certain security investments, derivative instruments, and hedging activities; and (2) presentation of comprehensive income and components of other comprehensive income.

    The Board proposed these revisions based on the GAAP promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 3 in the following Accounting Standards Codifications (ASC): ASC 320 Investments—Debt and Equity Securities; ASC 220 Comprehensive Income; ASC 815 Derivatives and Hedging; and ASC 805 Business Combinations.4 The Board stated that the purpose of the proposed revisions is to provide consistent accounting and reporting of changes in the fair value of security investments, derivative instruments, and hedging activities. The Board further stated that the proposed changes would minimize the accounting and reporting burden on railroads under the Board's jurisdiction, assist the Board in its overall monitoring effort, and improve transparency.

    3 FASB is a private, non-profit organization responsible for setting accounting standards for public companies in the United States.

    4 These accounting pronouncements are available at https://asc.fasb.org.

    Second, the Board proposed revising the USOA to reflect current accounting practices for business combinations by removing existing instructions for the pooling-of-interest method of accounting and replacing those instructions with the acquisition accounting method. This method of accounting has been standard practice in the accounting industry for some time, and the Board has already agreed that the acquisition method better reflects the investment made in an acquired entity and has affirmed the use of this treatment.5 Thus, in the NPR, the Board proposed to update the USOA to reflect this accounting treatment.

    5See W. Coal Traffic League—Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 35506, slip op at 6-17 (STB served July 25, 2013).

    Finally, the Board proposed revising the Form R-1 to include new accounts and a new reporting schedule and eliminating 15 schedules that the Board no longer uses.

    The proposed rules were published in the Federal Register, 80 FR 39,021 (July 8, 2015). The Board received comments from the Association of American Railroads (AAR); no reply comments were filed.

    Final Rules

    The Board has reviewed the issues raised in AAR's comments and addresses them below, along with any revisions made in response. The final rules in full are below.

    Accounting and Reporting of Business Combinations, Security Investments, Comprehensive Income, Derivative Instruments, and Hedging Activities

    In the NPR, the Board proposed to amend its USOA and Form R-1 by adding new general instructions and accounts to recognize changes in the fair value of certain security investments, items of other comprehensive income, derivative instruments, and hedging activities. Additionally, the Board proposed revising its USOA to reflect current accounting practices for business combinations by removing existing instructions for the pooling-of-interest method of accounting and requiring only the acquisition accounting methodology. The Board also sought comment on its proposal to revise the Form R-1 to include the new accounts and a new reporting schedule.

    No comments were filed in opposition to these proposals. Thus, the Board adopts such proposals here in the final rules. These changes will improve completeness and consistency of accounting and reporting. The addition of the proposed new accounts and related reporting requirements to the Form R-1 will reduce regulatory uncertainty as to the proper accounting and reporting for these items and minimize regulatory burden by reducing the potential differences in the manner in which certain amounts are reported to shareholders and to the Board. Finally, the reporting of derivative instruments and hedging activities by regulated carriers will assist the Board in its overall monitoring effort as well as its ability to assess railroad industry growth and financial stability.

    Elimination of, or Changes to, Certain Schedules

    The Board stated in the NPR that it had examined the current Form R-1 and determined that 15 of the 47 schedules were no longer used by the Board to perform regulatory and oversight functions. The Board, therefore, proposed to eliminate the following 15 schedules:

    230 Capital Stock 339 Accrued Liability—Leased Property 340 Depreciation Base and Rates—Improvements to Road and Equipment Leased from Others 350 Depreciation Base and Rates—Road and Equipment Leased to Others 351 Accumulated Depreciation—Road and Equipment Leased to Others 416 Supporting Schedule—Road 418 Supporting Schedule—Capital Leases 460 Items in Selected Income and Retained Earnings Accounts for the Year 702 Miles of Road at Close of Year—By States and Territories (Single Track) 721 Ties Laid in Replacement 722 Ties Laid in Additional Tracks and in New Lines and Extensions 723 Rails Laid in Replacement 724 Rails Laid in Additional Tracks and in New Lines and Extensions 725 Weight of Rail 726 Summary of Track Replacements

    In its comments, AAR states that it supports the Board's proposal to eliminate these schedules from the Form R-1, with the exception of Schedule 702, Miles of Road at Close of Year-By States and Territories (Single Track). According to AAR, Schedule 702 should be retained because this schedule is used to calculate state tax rates in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method.6

    6 The Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method is one of the three benchmarks used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under the Board's Three Benchmark methodology. See Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, EP 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007); Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases—Taxes in Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, EP 646 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served Nov. 21, 2008).

    We agree with AAR that Schedule 702 should be retained. The Form R-1 report, filed annually by Class I railroads, includes the mileage necessary to weight average state tax rates that are utilized in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation methodology.7 Therefore, Schedule 702 will be retained.

    7See Annual Submission of Tax Info. for Use in Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, EP 682, slip op. at 2 n.3 (STB served Feb. 26, 2010).

    In addition to the schedules proposed for elimination in the NPR, AAR requests, consistent with its comments previously filed in Improving Regulation & Regulatory Review, Docket No. EP 712, that the Board eliminate Schedule 220, Retained Earnings; Schedule 342, Accumulated Depreciation—Improvements to Road and Equipment Leased from Others; Schedule 501, Guarantees and Suretyships; and Schedule 502, Compensating Balances and Short-Term Borrowing Arrangements. AAR further requests that the Board eliminate Schedule 310, Investments and Advances Affiliated Companies and Schedule 310A, Investments in Common Stocks of Affiliated Companies. According to AAR, these schedules are unnecessary because they capture data that is neither used nor usable to support the Board's regulatory objectives.

    The Board will not adopt AAR's proposals to eliminate these other schedules. Schedule 220, Retained Earnings, will be retained because it is a significant financial disclosure for stakeholders interested in changes in the retained earnings account during the reporting period and gives important insight into the rail carrier's financial performance. Schedule 342, Accumulated Depreciation—Improvements to Road and Equipment Leased from Others, will be retained because it is used in the Board's Uniform Rail Costing System (URCS) and review of depreciation studies. In addition, eliminating Schedule 342 would limit the Board's ability to collect sufficient detail for R-1 reporting regarding rail carriers' implementation of the updated GAAP standard for leases. Finally, Schedules 501 (Guarantees and Suretyships), 502 (Compensating Balances and Short-Term Borrowing Arrangements), 310 (Investments and Advances Affiliated Companies), and 310A (Investments in Common Stocks of Affiliated Companies), are currently used by the Board's Office of Economics in intercompany audits, as they provide detailed information related to the railroads' financial arrangements with affiliated companies and financial agreements with borrowers and lenders. Those schedules therefore will be retained.

    AAR further suggests, consistent with its comments in Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, Docket No. EP 712, that the Board make certain changes to either conform Form R-1 schedules to GAAP or otherwise harmonize Form R-1 reporting requirements. In Schedule 210, Results of Operations, AAR suggests that the Board change the description in Line 41 from “Amortization of Discount on Funded Debt,” to “Amortization of Premium or Discount on Funded Debt,” to reflect that premium amortization is included in interest expenses. AAR also suggests removing Line 22 where amortization of premium on funded debt is currently reported. In Schedule 412, Way and Structures, AAR suggests adding a separate line for “Shop Machinery” to reconcile the amortization expenses and depreciation for road accounts required in Schedules 412 and 335, Accumulated Depreciation—Road and Equipment Owned and Used. For Schedule 415, Supporting Schedule—Equipment, AAR proposes that the Board combine owned and capitalized leases in the schedule and eliminate lines pertaining to “Machinery” because, according to AAR, this data is not in or supported by Schedule 410, Equipment Accounts. Finally, for Schedule 755, Railroad Operating Statistics, AAR suggests eliminating Line 89—Caboose Miles—due to the significant reduction in the use of cabooses by reporting rail carriers.

    While the Board will not adopt AAR's suggestions that the Board make certain other changes to either conform Form R-1 schedules to GAAP or otherwise harmonize Form R-1 reporting requirements, the Board will provide clarifying instructions with respect to one of AAR's proposals.

    First, we will not adopt AAR's requested changes to Schedule 210, Results of Operations. Although AAR's proposal would simplify the reporting presentation in the Form R-1, the Board's current practice of presenting premiums and discounts of funded debt separately is preferable because it allows for transparent financial reporting by showing both interest income and expense.

    Additionally, AAR's suggestion that the Board combine owned and capitalized leases in Schedule 415 (Supporting Schedule—Equipment) will not be adopted because this change would limit the Board's ability to collect sufficient detail for R-1 reporting regarding railroads' implementation of the updated GAAP standards for leases. This change would also require a modification in how Schedule 415 is inputted in URCS. In addition, although AAR suggests that lines pertaining to “Machinery” be eliminated in Schedule 415 because, according to AAR, such data is not in or supported by Schedule 410 (Equipment Accounts), the Board will not do so because Schedule 415, Lines 38-40 reconcile to Schedule 410, Lines 203, 222, and 306.

    In Schedule 755 (Railroad Operating Statistics), the Board will retain Line 89-Caboose Miles. While reporting carriers have been reducing the use of cabooses over time, a level of use still exists. Further, removing Line 89 would eliminate an operating statistic from the URCS calculation.

    While AAR suggests adding a separate line for “Shop Machinery” in Schedule 412 (Way and Structures) to reconcile the amortization expenses and depreciation for road accounts required in Schedules 412 (Way and Structures) and 335 (Accumulated Depreciation—Road and Equipment Owned and Used), the Board notes that Schedule 412 reports a railroad's fixed roadway facilities; “Shop Machinery” does not fall into such a category, but should be recorded in equipment accounts. The Board, however, will clarify instruction 4 in Schedule 412 to read as follows: “Amortization adjustment of each road property type which is included in column (b) shall be repeated in column (d) as a debit or credit to the appropriate line item. The net adjustment on line 29 shall equal the adjustment reported on line 29 of Schedule 335, excluding Account 44, Shop Machinery.”

    In sum, the final rules will eliminate the schedules previously identified in the NPR except for Schedule 702, Miles of Road at Close of Year-By States and Territories (Single Track), as discussed above. The Board will also clarify R-1 Schedule 412 instruction 4 as it pertains to the treatment of Shop Machinery.

    Instruction 2-15

    As noted in the NPR, ASC 805 Business Combinations requires the use of the acquisition method of accounting for all business combinations. While this method of accounting has been standard practice in the accounting industry for some time, and the Board has already agreed that the acquisition method better reflects the investment made in an acquired entity and has affirmed the use of this treatment, the USOA has not been updated to incorporate the method.8 Thus, the NPR proposed to update the USOA to reflect this accounting treatment.

    8See Western Coal Traffic League—Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 35506, slip op at 6-17.

    In connection with that proposal, the Board specifically sought comment on the application of Instruction 2-15, paragraph (d) with respect to use of the pooling of interest method for transactions involving the acquisition and merger of property of subsidiaries in INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERTY ACCOUNTS. No comments were submitted regarding the treatment or application of Instruction 2-15, paragraph (d). Therefore, we will update Instruction 2-15, paragraph (d) to reflect the use of the acquisition accounting methodology and remove any reference or instruction pertaining to the pooling-of-interest methodology.9

    9 We believe that removing references or instructions pertaining to the pooling-of-interest methodology in Instruction 2-15, paragraph (d) directly follows from the NPR and the Board's adoption of the acquisition accounting methodology. It is also a logical outgrowth of the overall approach proposed in the NPR of shifting to the acquisition method of accounting for all business combinations. In proceedings governed by the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, notice is sufficient if the final rule adopted by an agency is the logical outgrowth of the proposed rule on which it sought comment. See EC-MAC Motor Carriers Serv. Ass'n, SSM 118 (Sub-No. 2), slip op. at 3 (STB served Mar. 27, 2003) (citing Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303, 1311 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

    ASC 410

    In response to the NPR, AAR also suggests that the Board adopt ASC 410, Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations, which addresses financial accounting and reporting for obligations associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets and the associated asset retirement costs. AAR, however, does not explain why it believes ASC 410 should be adopted. The Board has already determined in an Accounting Series Circular served on June 11, 2003, and sent to all accounting officers of Class I railroads, that the Board would not adopt Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, now codified as ASC 410, because to do so would be inconsistent with the Board's accounting rules.10 Nothing in AAR's comments suggests any reason for altering the Board's 2003 determination. Accordingly, we will not adopt ASC 410 as suggested by AAR.

    10 Surface Transportation Board, Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and Administration, Accounting Series Circular No. 202 (2003).

    Periodic Review

    As noted above, 49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11161 require the Board to conform its accounting rules to GAAP “[t]o the maximum extent practicable.” Therefore, in keeping with this requirement, the Board will conduct a periodic review of its accounting standards not less than every five years.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In the NPR the Board sought comments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3549, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320.11, regarding: (1) Whether the revisions to the collection of information proposed here are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden assessment; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, when appropriate. Comments regarding the necessity, utility, and clarity of the information collection were received and are addressed above. No comments concerning the Board's burden estimates were received.

    The proposed collection was submitted to OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR 1320.11. OMB withheld approval pending submission of the final rule. We are today submitting the collection contained in this final rule to OMB for approval. Once approval is received, we will post a copy of the revised Form R-1 on the Board's Web site. Unless renewed, OMB approval of this collection expires three years after the date that OMB approves the collection.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement

    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. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. Under § 605(b), an agency is not required to perform an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis if it certifies that the proposed or final rules will not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.”

    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, 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2009). An agency has no obligation to conduct a small entity impact analysis of effects on entities that it does not regulate. United Distrib. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

    The rule changes adopted here will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the RFA. The reporting requirements are applicable only to entities that are required to file Form R-1 reports, i.e., the Class I carriers. 49 CFR 1241.1. Class I carriers are large railroads; accordingly, there will be no impact on small railroads (small entities).11 Therefore, the Board certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.

    11 Class I carriers generally do not fall under the definition of a “small rail carrier” as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA'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).

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1201.

    Railroads, Uniform System of Accounts.

    It is ordered:

    1. The final rules set forth below are adopted and will be effective on May 6, 2016. Notice of the rules adopted here will be published in the Federal Register.

    2. This decision is effective on the date of service.

    Decided: March 30, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

    Tia Delano, Clearance Clerk.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board is amending part 1201 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 1201—RAILROAD COMPANIES The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 11142 and 11164.

    Subpart A—Uniform System of Accounts 2. Amend Regulations Prescribed by revising paragraph (ii), item 16(c), to read as follows: List of Instructions and Accounts REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED

    (ii) * * *

    16. * * *

    (c) Cost, as applied to a marketable equity security, refers to the original cost as adjusted for unrealized holding gains and losses.

    3. Amend General Instructions by adding instructions 1-19 and 1-20, to read as follows: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

    1-19 Accounting for Other Comprehensive Income. (a) Railroads will record items of Other Comprehensive Income in account 799.1, Other comprehensive income. Amounts included in this account will be maintained by each category of Other Comprehensive Income. Examples of categories of Other Comprehensive Income include foreign currency items, minimum pension liability adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale type securities and cash-flow hedge amounts.

    (b) Supporting records will be maintained for account 799 so that the company can readily identify the cumulative amount of Other Comprehensive Income for each item included in this account.

    (c) When an item of Other Comprehensive Income enters into the determination of earnings in the current or subsequent periods, a reclassification adjustment will be recorded in account 799 to avoid double counting of when an item included in net income was also included in Other Comprehensive Income in the same or prior period.

    1-20 Accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities. (a) A carrier will recognize derivative instruments as either assets or liabilities in the financial statements and measure those instruments at fair value. A derivative instrument is a financial instrument or other contract with all three of the following characteristics:

    (1) The derivative instrument has one or more underlyings and a notional amount or payment provision. Those terms determine the amount of the settlement or settlements, and, in some cases, whether or not a settlement is required.

    (2) The derivative instrument requires no initial net investment or an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have similar responses to changes in market factors.

    (3) The derivative instrument's terms require or permit net settlement; the derivative instrument can readily be settled net by a means outside the contract; or the derivative instrument's terms provide for delivery of an asset that puts the recipient in a position not substantially different from net settlement.

    (b) The accounting for the changes in the fair value of derivative instruments depends upon their intended use and designation. Changes in the fair value of derivative instruments not designated as fair value or cash flow hedges will be recorded in account 713.5, Derivative instrument assets, or account 763.5, Derivative instrument liabilities, as appropriate, with the gains or losses charged to earnings in account 551, Miscellaneous income charges.

    (c) A derivative instrument may be specifically designated as a fair-value or cash-flow hedge. A hedge may be used to manage risk to price, interest rates, or foreign currency transactions. An entity will maintain documentation of the hedge relationship at the inception of the hedge that details the risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge, the nature of the risk being hedged, and how hedge effectiveness will be determined.

    (d) If the carrier designates the derivative instrument as a fair-value hedge against exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset, liability, or a firm commitment, it will record the change in fair value of the derivative instrument designated as a fair-value hedge to account 713.6, Derivative instruments assets—hedges, or account 763.6, Derivative instrument liabilities—hedges, as appropriate, with a corresponding adjustment to the sub-account of the item being hedged. The ineffective portion of the hedge transaction will be reflected in the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or settled. In the case of a fair-value hedge of a firm commitment, a new asset or liability is created. As a result of the hedge relationship, the new asset or liability will become part of the carrying amount of the item being hedged.

    (e) If the carrier designates the derivative instrument as a cash-flow hedge against exposure to variable cash flows of a probable forecasted transaction, it will record changes in the fair value of the derivative instrument in account 713.6, Derivative instrument assets—hedges, or account 763.6, Derivative instrument liabilities—hedges, as appropriate, with a corresponding amount in account 799.1, Other comprehensive income, for the effective portion of the hedge. The ineffective portion of the hedge transaction will be reflected in the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or settled. Amounts recorded in Other Comprehensive Income will be reclassified into earnings in the same period or periods that the hedged forecasted item affects earnings.

    4. Amend Instructions For Property Accounts by: a. Revising paragraph (a) in Instruction 2-15; b. Removing paragraph (b) in Instruction 2-15; c. Redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b) in Instruction 2-15; d. Revising the newly designated paragraph (b) in Instruction 2-15; e. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c) in Instruction 2-15; and f. Revising the newly designated paragraph (c) in Instruction 2-15.

    The revisions read as follows:

    INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPERTY ACCOUNTS

    2-15 * * * (a) When a railway or portion thereof constituting an operating unit or system is acquired in a business combination, that business combination shall be recorded in the accounts in the manner stated hereunder.

    (b) Purchase:

    (1) The amount includable in account 731, Road and equipment property, shall be the cost at the date of acquisition to the purchaser of the transportation property acquired. The cost assigned the property, as well as other assets acquired, shall be the amount of the cost consideration given. Where property and other assets are acquired for other than cash, including liabilities assumed and shares of stock issued, cost shall be determined by either the fair value of the consideration given or the fair value of the assets acquired, whichever is more clearly evident. In addition to any liabilities assumed, provision shall be made for such estimated liabilities as may be necessary.

    (2) When the costs of individual units or classes of transportation property are not specified in the agreement, the cost assigned such property shall be apportioned among the appropriate primary accounts using the percentage relationship between the fair values for each class of property acquired and the total of such values.

    (c) Merger of subsidiaries:

    The acquisition and merger of property of subsidiaries controlled through ownership of the majority shares of voting stock is to be accounted for using the acquisition accounting methodology.

    5. Amend Instructions For Income And Balance Sheet Accounts by revising Instruction 5-2, paragraph (a), items (2), (3), and (4) to read as follows: INSTRUCTIONS FOR INCOME AND BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS

    5-2 * * *

    (a) * * *

    (2) Account 702, Temporary cash investments, account 721, Investments and advances; affiliated companies, and account 722, Other investments and advances, shall be maintained in such a manner as to reflect the marketable equity portion (see definition 26) and other securities or investments.

    (3) For the purpose of determining net ledger value, the marketable equity securities in account 702 shall be considered the current portfolio and the marketable equity securities in accounts 721 and 722 (combined) shall be considered the noncurrent portfolio.

    (4) Carriers will categorize their security investments as held-to-maturity, trading, or available-for-sale. Unrealized holding gains and losses on trading type investment securities will be recorded in account 551, Miscellaneous income charges. Unrealized holding gains and losses on available-for-sale type investment securities will be recorded in account 799.1, Other comprehensive income.

    6. Amend Income Accounts—Ordinary Items by adding a sentence at the end of the list of inclusions for account 551 “Miscellaneous income charges,” paragraph (a) to read as follows: INCOME ACCOUNTS Ordinary Items 551 Miscellaneous income charges.

    (a) * * *

    Unrealized holding gains and losses on trading type investment securities.

    7. Amend General Balance Sheet Accounts Explanations—Assets, Current Assets by: a. Adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in account 702 “Temporary cash investment”; b. Adding accounts 713.5 “Derivative instrument assets” and 713.6 “Derivative instrument assets-hedges.”

    The additions read as follows:

    GENERAL BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS EXPLANATIONS Assets Current Assets 702 Temporary cash investments.

    * * * This account shall also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments.

    713.5 Derivative instrument assets.

    This account shall include the amounts paid for derivative instruments, and the change in the fair value of all derivative instrument assets not designated as cash-flow or fair-value hedges. Account 551, Miscellaneous income charges, will be charged with the corresponding amount of the change in the fair value of the derivative instrument.

    713.6 Derivative instrument assets—hedges.

    (a) This account shall include the amounts paid for derivative instruments, and the change in the fair value of derivative instrument assets designated by the carrier as cash-flow or fair-value hedges.

    (b) When a carrier designates a derivative instrument asset as a cash-flow hedge, it will record the change in the fair value of the derivative instrument in this account with a concurrent charge to account 799.1, Other comprehensive income, with the effective portion of the derivative's gain or loss. The ineffective portion of the cash-flow hedge will be charged to the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or otherwise settled.

    (c) When a carrier designates a derivative instrument as a fair-value hedge, it will record the change in the fair value of the derivative instrument in this account with a concurrent charge to a sub-account of the asset or liability that carries the item being hedged. The ineffective portion of the fair-value hedge will be charged to the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or otherwise settled.

    8. Amend General Balance Sheet Accounts Explanations—Assets, Special Funds by: a. In account 715 “Sinking funds,” adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (b); b. In account 716 “Capital funds,” adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a); and c. In account 717 “Other funds,” adding Note E.

    The additions read as follows:

    GENERAL BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS EXPLANATIONS Assets Special Funds 715 Sinking funds.

    (b) * * * This account shall also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments. The cash value of life insurance policies on the lives of employees and officers to the extent that the carrier is the beneficiary of such policies shall also be included in this account.

    716 Capital funds.

    (a) * * * This account shall also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments.

    717 Other funds. Note E:

    This account shall also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments.

    9. Amend General Balance Sheet Accounts Explanations—Assets, Investments by: a. In account 722 “Other investments and advances,” adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (a); and b. Removing account 724 “Allowance for net unrealized loss on noncurrent marketable equity securities—Cr.”

    The addition reads as follows:

    GENERAL BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS EXPLANATIONS Assets Investments 722 Other investments and advances.

    (a) * * * This account shall also include unrealized holding gains and losses on trading and available-for-sale types of security investments. Include also the offsetting entry to the recording of amortization of discount or premium on interest bearing investments.

    10. Amend General Balance Sheet Accounts Explanations—Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity, Current Liabilities by adding accounts 763.5 “Derivative instrument liabilities” and 763.6 “Derivative instrument liabilities-hedges”, to read as follows: GENERAL BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS EXPLANATIONS Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity Current Liabilities 763.5 Derivative instrument liabilities.

    This account shall include the change in the fair value of all derivative instrument liabilities not designated as cash-flow or fair-value hedges. Account 551, Miscellaneous income charges, will be charged with the corresponding amount of the change in the fair value of the derivative instrument.

    763.6 Derivative instrument liabilities—hedges.

    (a) This account shall include the change in the fair value of derivative instrument liabilities designated by the carrier as cash-flow or fair-value hedges.

    (b) A carrier will record the change in the fair value of a derivative instrument liability related to a cash-flow hedge in this account, with a concurrent charge to account 799.1, Other comprehensive income, with the effective portion of the derivative instrument's gain or loss. The ineffective portion of the cash-flow hedge will be charged to the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or otherwise settled.

    (c) A carrier will record the change in the fair value of a derivative instrument liability related to a fair-value hedge in this account, with a concurrent charge to a sub-account of the asset or liability that carries the item being hedged. The ineffective portion of the fair-value hedge will be charged to the same income or expense account that would have been used if the hedged item had been disposed of or otherwise settled.

    11. Amend General Balance Sheet Accounts Explanations—Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity, Shareholders' Equity by: a. Removing account 798.1 “Net unrealized loss on noncurrent marketable securities”; and b. Adding account 799 “Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.”

    The addition reads as follows:

    GENERAL BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS EXPLANATIONS Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity Shareholders' Equity 799 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.

    (a) This account shall include revenues, expenses, gains, and losses that are properly includable in Other Comprehensive Income during the period. Examples of items of Other Comprehensive Income include foreign currency items, minimum pension liability adjustments, unrealized gains and losses on certain investments in debt and equity securities, and cash-flow hedges. Records supporting the entries to this account shall be maintained so that the carrier can furnish the amount of Other Comprehensive Income for each item included in this account.

    (b) This account shall also be debited or credited, as appropriate, with amounts of accumulated Other Comprehensive Income that have been included in the determination of net income during the period and in accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in prior periods. Separate records for each category of items will be maintained to identify the amount of the reclassification adjustments from accumulated Other Comprehensive Income to earnings made during the period.

    12. Revise Form of General Balance Sheet Statement to read as follows: Form of General Balance Sheet Statement

    The classified form of general balance sheet statement is designed to show the financial condition of the accounting company at any specified date.

    Assets Current assets: 701. Cash. 702. Temporary cash investments. 703. Special deposits. 704. Loans and notes receivable. 705. Accounts receivable; Interline and other balances. 706. Accounts receivable; Customers. 707. Accounts receivable; Other. 708. Interest and dividends receivable. 708.5. Receivables from affiliated companies. 709. Accrued accounts receivable. 709.5. Allowance for uncollectible accounts. Net receivables. 710. Working funds. 711. Prepayments. 712. Material and supplies. 713. Other current assets. 713.5 Derivative instrument assets. 713.6 Derivative instrument assets-hedges. 714. Deferred income tax debits. Total current assets. Special funds: 715. Sinking funds. 716. Capital funds. 717. Other funds. Total special funds. Investments: 721. Investments and advances; affiliated companies. Undistributed earnings from certain investments in account 751. 721.5. Adjustments; investments and advances—affiliated companies. Net—investments and advances—affiliated companies. 722. Other investments and advances. 723. Adjustments; Other investments and advances.  Net—other investments and advances.  Total investments. Tangible property: 731. Road and equipment property. 735. Accumulated depreciation; Road and equipment property. 736. Accumulated amortization; Road and equipment property—Defense projects.  Net road and equipment property. 732. Improvements on leased property. 733. Accumulated depreciation; Improvements on leased property. 734. Accumulated amortization; Improvements on leased property—Defense projects.  Net improvements on leased property.  Total carrier property. 737. Property used in other than carrier operations. 738. Accumulated depreciation; Property used in other than carrier operations.  Net—property used in other than carrier operations.  Total tangible property. Intangible property: 739. Organization expenses. Other assets and deferred debits: 741. Other assets. 743. Other deferred debits. 744. Accumulated deferred income tax debits. Total other assets and deferred debits. Total assets. Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity Current liabilities: 751. Loans and notes payable. 752. Accounts payable; Interline and other balances. 753. Audited accounts and wages payable. 754. Accounts payable; Other. 755. Interest payable. 756. Dividends payable. 757. Payables to affiliated companies. 759. Accrued accounts payable. 760. Federal income taxes accrued. 761. State and other income taxes accrued. 761.5. Other taxes accrued. 762. Deferred income tax credits. 763. Other current liabilities. 763.5 Derivative instrument liabilities. 763.6 Derivative instrument liabilities—hedges. 764. Equipment obligations and other long-term debt due within one year. Total current liabilities. Long-term debt due after one year: 1 765. Funded debt unmatured. 766. Equipment obligations. 766.5. Capitalized lease obligations. 767. Receivers' and trustees' securities. 768. Debt in default. 769. Accounts payable; Affiliated companies. 770.1 Unamortized debt discount. 770.2 Unamortized premium on debt. Total long-term debt due after one year. Other long-term liabilities: 771. Accrued liability; Pension and welfare. 772. Accrued liability; Leased property. 774. Accrued liability; Casualty and other claims. 775. Other accrued liabilities. 781. Interest in default. 782. Other liabilities. Total other long-term liabilities. Deferred credits: 783. Deferred revenues—transfers from government authorities. 784. Other deferred credits. 786. Accumulated deferred income tax credits. Total deferred credits. Shareholders' equity:  Capital stock: 791. Capital stock. 792. Liability for conversion of capital stock. 793. Discount on capital stock. Total capital stock.  Additional capital: 794. Premiums and assessments on capital stock. 795. Other capital. Total additional capital. Retained earnings: 797. Retained earnings; Appropriated. 798. Retained earnings; Unappropriated. Total retained earnings. 798.5 Treasury stock. 799. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. Total shareholders' equity. Total liabilities and shareholders' equity. 1 To be divided as to “Total issued” and “Held by or for company.” 13. Amend Conversion Tables by revising General Balance Sheet Accounts Conversion Table to read as follows: CONVERSION TABLES General Balance Sheet Accounts Conversion Table System of accounts eff. prior to April 2016 Account title No. System of accounts eff. April 2016 No. Account title Cash 701 701 Cash. Temporary cash investments 702 702 Temporary cash investments. Special deposits 703 703 Special deposits. Loans and notes receivable 704 704 Loans and notes receivable. 708.5 Receivables from affiliated companies. 709.5 Allowance for uncollectible accounts. Traffic, car service and other balances—dr 705 705 Accounts receivable; interline and other balances. 709.5 Allowances for uncollectible accounts. 752 Accounts payable; interline and other balances. Net balance receivable from agents and conductors 706 706 Accounts receivable; customers. Miscellaneous accounts receivable 707 707 Accounts receivable; other. 708.5 Receivables from affiliated companies. 709.5 Allowance for uncollectible accounts. Interest and dividends receivable 708 708 Interest and dividends receivable. 708.5 Receivables from affiliated companies. 709.5 Allowance for uncollectible accounts. Accrued accounts receivable 709 709 Accrued accounts receivable. Working fund advances 710 710 Working funds. Prepayments 711 711 Prepayments. Material and supplies 712 712 Material and supplies. Other current assets 713 713 Other current assets. 713.5 Derivative instrument assets. 713.6 Derivative instrument assets—hedges. Deferred income tax charges 714 714 Deferred income tax debits. Sinking funds 715 715 Sinking funds. Capital and other reserve funds 716 716 Capital funds. Insurance and other funds 717 717 Other funds. Investment in affiliated companies 721 721 Investments and advances; affiliated companies. Other investments 722 722 Other investments and advances. Reserve for adjustment of investment in securities—cr 723 721.5 Adjustments; investments and advances—affiliated companies. 723 Adjustments; other investments and advances. Road and equipment property 731 731 Road and equipment property. Organization expenses 71 739 Organization expenses. Improvements on leased property 732 732 Improvements on leased property. Accrued depreciation; improvements on leased property 733 733 Accumulated depreciation; improvements on leased property. Accrued depreciation; road and equipment 735 735 Accumulated depreciation; road and equipment property. Amortization of defense projects; road and equipment 736 736 Accumulated amortization; road and equipment property—defense projects. 734 Accumulated amortization; improvements on leased property—defense projects. Miscellaneous physical property 737 737 Property used in other than carrier operations. Accrued depreciation; miscellaneous physical property 738 738 Accumulated depreciation; property used in other than carrier operations. Other assets 741 741 Other assets. Unamortized discount on long-term debt 770.1 770.1 Unamortized debt discount. Other deferred charges 743 743 Other deferred debits. Accumulated deferred income tax charges 744 744 Accumulated deferred income tax debits. Liabilities Loans and notes payable 751 751 Loans and notes payable. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Traffic, car service and other balances—cr 752 752 Accounts payable; interline and other balances. 705 Accounts receivable; interline and other balances. 709.5 Allowance for uncollectible accounts. Audited accounts and wages payable 753 753 Audited accounts and wages payable. Miscellaneous accounts payable 754 754 Accounts payable; other. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Interest matured unpaid 755 755 Interest payable. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Dividends matured unpaid 756 756 Dividends payable. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Unmatured interest accrued 757 755 Interest payable. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Unmatured dividends declared 758 756 Dividends payable. 757 Payables to affiliated companies. Accrued accounts payable 759 759 Accrued accounts payable. Federal income taxes accrued 760 760 Federal income taxes accrued. Other taxes accrued 761 711 Prepayments. 761 State and other income taxes accrued. 761.5 Other taxes accrued. Deferred income tax credits 762 762 Deferred income tax credits. Other current liabilities 763 763 Other current liabilities. 763.5 Derivative instrument liabilities 763.6 Derivative instrument liabilities—hedges Equipment obligations and other debt due within one year 764 764 Equipment obligations and other long-term debt due within 1 year. Funded debt unmatured 765 765 Funded debt unmatured. Equipment obligations 766 766 Equipment obligations. Capitalized lease obligations 766.5 766.5 Capitalized lease obligations. Receivers' and trustees' securities 767 767 Receivers' and trustees' securities. Debt in default 768 768 Debt in default. Amounts payable to affiliated companies 769 769 Accounts payable; affiliated companies. Pension and welfare reserves 771 771 Accrued liability; pension and welfare. Casualty and other reserves 774 774 Accrued liability; casualty and other claims. 775 Other accrued liabilities. Interest in default 781 781 Interest in default. Other liabilities 782 782 Other liabilities. Deferred revenues—transfers from government authorities. 783 783 Deferred revenues—transfers from government authorities Unamortized premium on long-term debt 790.2 770.2 Unamortized premium on debt. Other deferred credits 784 784 Other deferred credits. Accrued liability; leased property 785 772 Accrued liability; leased property. Accumulated deferred income tax credits 786 786 Accumulated deferred income tax credits. Shareholders' Equity Capital stock issued 791 791 Capital stock. Stock liability for conversion 792 792 Liability for conversion of capital stock. Discount on capital stock 793 793 Discount on capital stock. Premiums and assessment on capital stock 794 794 Premiums and assessments on capital stock. Paid-in surplus 795 795 Other capital. Other capital surplus 796 795 Do. Retained income; appropriated 797 797 Retained earnings; appropriated. Retained income; unappropriated 798 798 Retained earnings; unappropriated. Treasury stock 798.5 798.5 Treasury stock. 799 Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. Note:

    The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    BILLING CODE 4915-01-P ER06AP16.012 ER06AP16.013 ER06AP16.014 ER06AP16.015 ER06AP16.016 ER06AP16.017 ER06AP16.018 ER06AP16.019 ER06AP16.020 ER06AP16.021
    [FR Doc. 2016-07759 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2011-0027; FF09A30000 123 FXIA16710900000R4] RIN 1018-AW81 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; U.S. Captive-Bred Inter-subspecific Crossed or Generic Tigers AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are amending the regulations that implement the Endangered Species Act (Act) by removing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger (Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not identified or identifiable as members of Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and P. t. corbetti, respectively)) from the list of species that are exempt from registration under the Captive-bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations. The exemption currently allows those individuals or breeding operations who want to conduct otherwise prohibited activities, such as take, interstate commerce, and export under the Act with U.S. captive-bred, live inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, to do so without becoming registered. We make this change to the regulations to strengthen control over commercial movement and sale of tigers in the United States and to ensure that activities involving inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are consistent with the purposes of the Act. Inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are listed as endangered under the Act, and a person will need to obtain authorization under the current statutory and regulatory requirements to conduct any otherwise prohibited activities with them.

    DATES:

    This rule becomes effective on May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The supplementary materials for this rule, including the public comments received, are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2011-0027. You may obtain information about permits or other authorizations to carry out otherwise prohibited activities by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, Branch of Permits, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS-IA, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone: 703-358-2104 or (toll free) 800-358-2104; facsimile: 703-358-2281; email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.fws.gov/international.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Timothy J. Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS-IA, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2104; fax 703-358-2281. If you use a telecommunications devise for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    To prevent the extinction of wildlife and plants, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), prohibit any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from conducting certain activities with species listed under the Act unless first authorized by a permit, except as a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act applies to the species. These activities include import, export, take, and sale or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. The Secretary of the Interior may permit these activities for endangered species for scientific purposes or enhancement of the propagation or survival of the species, provided the activities are consistent with the purposes of the Act. In addition, for threatened species, permits may be issued for the above-listed activities, as well as zoological, horticultural, or botanical exhibition; education; and special purposes consistent with the Act. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated the authority to administer endangered and threatened species permit matters to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service's Division of Management Authority administers the permit program for the import or export of listed species, the sale or offer for sale in interstate and foreign commerce for nonnative listed species, and the take of nonnative listed wildlife within the United States.

    Previous Federal Action

    In 1979, the Service published the Captive-bred Wildlife (CBW) regulations (44 FR 54002, September 17, 1979) to reduce Federal permitting requirements and facilitate captive breeding of endangered and threatened species under certain conditions. These conditions include:

    (1) A person may become registered with the Service to conduct otherwise prohibited activities when the activities can be shown to enhance the propagation or survival of the species;

    (2) Interstate commerce is authorized only when both the buyer and seller are registered for the same species;

    (3) The registration is only for live, mainly nonnative endangered or threatened wildlife that was born in captivity in the United States (although the Service may determine that a native species is eligible for the registration; to date, the only native species granted eligibility under the registration is the Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis));

    (4) Registration does not authorize activities with non-living wildlife, a provision that is intended to discourage the propagation of endangered or threatened wildlife for consumptive markets; and

    (5) The registrants are required to maintain written records of authorized activities and report them annually to the Service. The CBW registration has provided zoological institutions and breeding operations the ability to move animals quickly between registered institutions for breeding purposes.

    In 1993, the Service amended the CBW regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g) (58 FR 68323, December 27, 1993) to eliminate public education through exhibition of living wildlife as the sole justification for the issuance of a CBW registration. That decision was based on the Service's belief that the scope of the CBW system should be revised to relate more closely to its original intent, i.e., the encouragement of responsible breeding that is specifically designed to help conserve the species involved (63 FR 48635; September 11, 1998).

    In 1998, the Service amended the CBW regulations (63 FR 48634, September 11, 1998) to delete the requirement to obtain a CBW registration for holders of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers (i.e., specimens not identified or identifiable as members of Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and P. t. corbetti, respectively)). Certain otherwise prohibited activities with these specimens were authorized only when the activities were shown to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, provided the principal purpose was to facilitate captive breeding. Although the submission of a written annual report was not required, holders of these specimens had to maintain accurate written records of activities, including births, deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make the records accessible to Service agents for inspection at reasonable hours as provided for in 50 CFR 13.46 and 13.47. The exemption for inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers was based on the lack of conservation value of these specimens due to their mixed or unknown genetic composition. The intention behind the exemption was for the Service to focus its oversight on populations of “purebred” animals of the various tiger subspecies to further their conservation in the wild, while recognizing that generic tigers that were currently held by zoological facilities could be used to educate the public about the ecological role and conservation needs of the species. Even with this exemption, inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers were still protected under the Act and those activities that did not constitute authorized activities under the CBW program, such as the interstate sale of generic tigers solely for education purposes or display purposes, would require prior authorization of an ESA permit.

    On August 22, 2011, the Service proposed to amend the CBW regulations that implement the Act by removing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from paragraph (g)(6) of 50 CFR 17.21 (76 FR 52297). The public was provided with a 30-day comment period to submit their views and comments on the proposed rule. However, due to the large volume of comments, the Service published a notice on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58455), extending the comment period for an additional 30 days. This comment period ended on October 21, 2011. Since that time, the Service has received no new substantive information that would affect this rule.

    Species Status

    The wild tiger was once abundant throughout Asia. At the end of the 19th century, an estimated 100,000 tigers occurred in the wild (Nowak 1999, p. 828), but by the late 1990s, the estimated population had declined to 5,000-7,000 animals (Seidensticker et al. 1999, p. xvii). Today's population in the wild is thought to be 3,000-5,000 individuals, according to the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List estimate (Chundawat et al. 2010, unpaginated), with no more than 2,500 mature breeding adults (Williamson and Henry 2008, pp. 7, 43). The once-abundant tiger now lives in small, fragmented groups, mostly in protected forests, refuges, and national parks (FWS 2010a, p. 1). The species occupies only about 7 percent of its original range, and in the past decade, the species' range has decreased by as much as 41 percent (Dinerstein et al. 2007, p. 508).

    For many years, the international community has expressed concern about the status of tigers in the wild and the risk that captive tigers, if used for consumptive purposes, may sustain the demand for tiger parts, which would ultimately have a detrimental effect on the survival of the species in the wild. An estimated 5,000 captive tigers occur on China's commercial tiger farms, where tigers are being bred intensively and produce more than 800 animals each year (Williamson and Henry 2008, p. 40). Tiger body parts, such as organs, bones, and pelts, are in demand not only in China, but also on the global black market. Organs and bones are used in traditional medicines, which are purchased by consumers who believe the parts convey strength, health, and virility.

    Current regulations under the ESA prohibit the taking of any tiger, including generic tigers, and there is no clear evidence that the U.S. captive tiger population has played a role in illegal international trade. However, in 2005, Werner (p. 24) estimated that 4,692 tigers were held in captivity in the United States. Approximately 264 tigers were held in institutions registered with the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), 1,179 in wildlife sanctuaries, 2,120 in institutions registered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 1,120 in private hands. In 2008, Williamson and Henry stated that as many as 5,000 tigers are in captivity in the United States, but cautioned that, given the current State and Federal legal framework that regulates U.S. captive tigers, the exact size of the population is unknown (Williamson and Henry 2008).

    Conservation Status

    The tiger is a species of global concern, is classified as endangered in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2010), and is protected by a number of U.S. laws and treaties. It is listed as endangered under the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines an “endangered species” as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The listing is at the species level and, thus, includes all subspecies of tiger (including those that are of unknown subspecies, referred to as “generic” tigers) and inter-subspecific crosses.

    The species is also protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Under this treaty, 178 member countries (Parties) work together to ensure that international trade in protected species is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations. The United States and all the tiger range countries are Parties to CITES. The tiger is listed in Appendix I, which includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, and which generally precludes commercial trade. The United States has a long history of working within CITES to promote tiger conservation and has been a leader in supporting strong actions within CITES for tigers, including strict controls on captive-bred animals. In 2007 at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP14), we were closely involved in drafting Decision 14.69, which calls on countries with intensive commercial breeding operations of tigers to implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers, and for tigers not to be bred for trade in their parts and products. Although the decision was primarily directed at large commercial breeding operations such as those found in China, we are aware of the large number of captive tigers in the United States and the need to be vigilant in monitoring these tigers as well.

    The tiger is afforded additional protection under the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA) and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act (RTCA, 16 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). The CWSA amended the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) to address concerns about public safety and the growing number of big cats, including tigers, in private hands in the United States. The law and its regulations make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any live big cats except by certain exempt entities. Entities exempt from the CWSA include a person, facility, or other entity licensed by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Animal Welfare Act to possess big cats (typically zoos, circuses, and researchers) or registered to transport big cats; State colleges, universities, and agencies; State-licensed wildlife rehabilitators and veterinarians; and wildlife sanctuaries that meet certain criteria.

    The RTCA is another powerful tool in combating the international trade in products containing tiger parts. It prohibits the sale, import, and export of products intended for human use and containing, or labeled or advertised as containing, any substance derived from tiger and provides for substantial criminal and civil penalties for violators. The RTCA also establishes a fund that allows the Service to grant money in support of on-the-ground tiger conservation efforts, such as anti-poaching programs, habitat and ecosystem management, development of nature reserves, wildlife surveys and monitoring, management of human-wildlife conflict, and public awareness campaigns (FWS 2010b. p. 1).

    Concerns Raised and Recommendations

    The World Wildlife Fund, TRAFFIC North America, other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the public have expressed concerns about the potential role U.S. captive tigers may play, or could potentially play, in the trade in tiger parts. In July 2008, TRAFFIC published a report titled, Paper Tigers? The Role of the U.S. Captive Tiger Population in the Trade in Tiger Parts (Williamson and Henry 2008). The report found no indication that U.S. tigers currently are entering domestic or international trade as live animals or as parts and products. However, given the precarious status of tigers in the wild and the potential that U.S. captive tigers could enter trade and undermine conservation efforts, TRAFFIC made several recommendations to close potential loopholes in current Federal and State regulations to avoid the use of captive U.S. tigers in trade. One of those recommendations was for the Service to eliminate the exemption under 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6) for holders of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the requirements to register and submit annual reports under the CBW regulations.

    Summary of Comments and Our Responses

    In our proposed rule (August 22, 2011; 76 FR 52297), we asked interested parties to submit comments or suggestions regarding the proposal to eliminate inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the regulation at 50 CFR 17.21(g). The original comment period for the proposed rule lasted for 30 days, ending September 21, 2011. The comment period was extended, however, on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58455), to allow for an additional 30 days to accommodate the large number of commenters. The extended comment period ended on October 21, 2011. We received 15,199 individual comments during the two comment periods. The vast majority of the comments (approximately 15,000) either supported the proposed rule as written or stated that it was not strong enough to address captive breeding of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers. We received 109 comments from individuals or organizations that opposed the proposed rule. The remaining 79 comments were either irrelevant to the proposed rule or indecipherable.

    Issue 1: Approximately 14,300 comments supported the proposed rule as written, stated that this change in the regulations would reduce the level of illegal trade in both captive and wild tigers, decrease the possibility of captive tigers being held in inhumane conditions, and reduce “rampant” breeding of captive tigers within the United States. However, many of these commenters were also concerned that the change in the regulation would result in the possible overcrowding of sanctuaries or unaccredited institutions that would receive unwanted adult tigers.

    Our response: The change in regulations would provide for greater control over captive tigers within the United States. As the CBW regulations are currently written, individuals or institutions that have been housing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers could move tigers across State lines for commercial activities without registering under the CBW regulations. While these activities are required to be undertaken in association with a managed breeding program to ensure that deleterious breeding (i.e., inbreeding or inappropriate crosses) does not occur, we have evidence that these requirements may have been violated in some number of cases. Therefore, based on this conclusion, we are acting consistently with the purposes of the Act to limit the authorization of interstate commerce and commercial movement of tigers under the CBW regulations to situations where the end-use of the tiger is to enhance the propagation or survival of the species in the wild by contributing to the conservation of the species.

    However, this change in regulations would not directly result in the control of breeding of inter-specific crossed or generic tigers. The Act does not regulate intrastate activities that do not result in a take or the noncommercial interstate movement of a listed species. The only intrastate activity that the Act regulates is the take (e.g., harming, harassing, or killing) of a listed species. Individuals or facilities that maintain such tigers can continue to breed tigers, sell them within their State, or move tigers across State lines for noncommercial purposes without obtaining authorization from us, as long as such activities do not result in a take of the species. However, it is possible that stricter regulation of the interstate commerce of these specimens may result in a reduction in breeding due to a smaller (i.e., intrastate only) market for generic tigers.

    It is also possible that, with this change in the CBW regulations and the potentially lower demand for tigers within the United States, individuals or facilities that currently hold inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers will move their animals to sanctuaries or other zoo facilities, causing these facilities to become overcrowded. We do not believe that such movement will become a significant problem at most zoos and sanctuaries, which generally maintain a high standard of care and, in any case, are required by the Animal Welfare Act and other Federal and State laws and regulations to provide humane treatment for animals. A need may arise, however, for greater coordination between nongovernmental organizations, zoos, and sanctuaries to ensure that all inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers that end up in sanctuaries or zoos receive adequate housing and care.

    Issue 2: Of the nearly 15,000 comments that supported the rule in some form, 527 commenters were opposed to maintaining tigers in captivity at all. These commenters expressed a general belief that tigers should be left in the wild and that captive tigers should be released. While many of these comments supported the change in regulations as necessary, they also expressed the belief that this change should be only the first step that would eventually result in captive tigers being released into the wild and/or no longer bred in captivity.

    Our response: As stated above, the Act does not prohibit the ownership of listed species, if the activities being carried out with these specimens do not violate any of the prohibitions of the Act. Therefore, if the animals were legally purchased and moved, the Act does not prohibit an individual or institution from maintaining or even breeding tigers. While we recognize that some people are opposed to maintaining exotic animals in captivity, we do not have the regulatory authority to prohibit such activities. Further, we do not believe that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are suitable for release in the wild, both because they may not be genetically compatible with wild populations, and because, in most cases, they are not suitably conditioned for survival in the wild. Such animals either might starve or could become a menace to livestock and humans. However, we believe that, under the correct circumstances, maintaining listed species in captivity—including tigers—can provide a conservation benefit to the species through education, research, and scientifically based breeding programs.

    Issue 3: Many commenters (160) requested that we establish stricter regulations for tigers than what was proposed. Suggestions included establishing regulations that would prohibit anyone from holding or breeding tigers and allow only accredited zoos or sanctuaries to hold tigers. Many of these commenters expressed the desire to eliminate the use of tigers in circuses and animal exhibitions. The comments included suggestions to increase control over breeding programs and to have more frequent inspections of facilities to monitor for abuse or substandard facilities. Some commenters suggested microchipping all captive tigers. Some comments recommended stiffer penalties for poachers within the tiger native range.

    Our response: As stated previously, the Act prohibits certain activities with listed species, but does not prohibit every activity that could involve such species. The Act does not regulate ownership or what an owner may do with a tiger as long as the owner obtained the tiger legally and does not harm or kill the tiger or engage in interstate commerce with the animal. We cannot establish regulations that go beyond the prohibitions of the Act, such as limiting ownership or breeding of tigers only to certain institutions or individuals. Anyone may engage in these activities if he or she otherwise complies with all other provisions of the Act, and as long as the actions are legal under other applicable laws (e.g., those of the State in which the activities take place).

    When we issue a permit or other authorization under the Act for otherwise prohibited activities, we do have the authority to conduct periodic inspections or otherwise have oversight of permitted activities. This authority, however, does not extend to activities outside the scope of the Act or for activities that are not regulated by the Act. Therefore, we do not have the ability to conduct regular inspections of breeding operations that do not require authorization from us. This type of inspection may be possible in some cases under the Animal Welfare Act, which is implemented by the USDA, but is outside the scope of this regulation. However, if we have evidence of illegal activity, we have the authority to carry out criminal investigations of any facility, whether or not it is permitted.

    While we could require microchipping of tigers at a facility that has obtained a permit or other authorization from the Service, we cannot require the microchipping of all tigers within the United States. Microchipping some tigers may give us the ability to track the movement of live animals that are involved in interstate commerce (an otherwise prohibited activity), but we would not be able to track live tigers that do not fall under our jurisdiction. Further, microchipping is unlikely to assist us in investigating the illegal movement of tiger parts within the United States. We also do not have the authority or the resources to monitor and record the birth, death, or transfer of all tigers in the United States. Microchipping a portion of the captive tigers in the United States for tracking purposes might give us a limited picture of the movement and ownership of these animals in the United States, but we do not believe that any limited benefits would outweigh the cost and administrative burden of microchipping and tracking these animals.

    We strongly encourage and support programs established by tiger range countries to control and ultimately eliminate poaching of wild tigers. We have been able to fund a variety of anti-poaching programs through various grant programs, including grants under the RTCA. We have also been actively involved in efforts through CITES to assist range countries in monitoring and controlling illegal trade in tigers. We do not have any authority, however, to establish stricter regulations regarding poaching in other countries.

    Issue 4: One commenter was of the opinion that the exemption from the CBW registration process violated section 10(c) of the Act since it did not allow the public an opportunity to comment on the merits of activities involving inter-specific crossed or generic tigers.

    Our response: By removing the exemption and requiring the submission of an application to either request a permit or register under the CBW regulations, the public will now have an opportunity to comment on the merits of any application to conduct otherwise prohibited activities with tigers.

    Issue 5: Many commenters (109) were opposed to removing the exemption. In general, they believe that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers contribute to conservation primarily through education, but also by acting as a source of tigers within the United States. Many of these commenters felt that requiring registration under the CBW regulations or requiring a permit to conduct otherwise prohibited activities would ultimately lead to the demise of captive tigers in the United States. Many of these commenters expressed their concern that wild tigers will go extinct in the near future due to habitat loss and poaching, and, therefore, captive-bred tigers are needed to ensure that the species does not go extinct.

    Our response: The CBW regulations facilitate the captive breeding of species listed under the Act for conservation purposes by allowing registrants to conduct interstate commerce and move specimens across State lines. The Service recognizes that well-managed breeding programs focusing on specific subspecies and that maintain good genetic diversity among the specimens within the breeding program can provide a long-term benefit to listed species by producing a pool of viable candidates for future reintroduction. We have also stated in the 1998 final rule exempting inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the CBW registration process (63 FR 48638) that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers should not be used for conservation-oriented breeding, but could be used for exhibition in a manner designed to educate the public about the ecological role and conservation needs of the species.

    The Act does not regulate intrastate activities other than take, such as ownership and breeding, nor does it regulate noncommercial interstate transfers of listed species (e.g., gifts, loans, and exchanges of animals of the same species for genetic management purposes). Removing the exemption for inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the CBW regulations will require anyone who is selling an inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger across State lines to either register under the CBW regulations or obtain an interstate commerce permit. The Service does not believe that the action taken in this final rule will adversely affect the conservation breeding of tigers within the United States, nor lead to the demise of captive tigers within the United States.

    Issue 6: Several commenters expressed the opinion that enough laws or restrictions are already in place to ensure that the legality of activities carried out with tigers. Two commenters pointed directly to the RTCA as a powerful tool to combat illegal trade of tiger parts within the United States. These commenters stated that, since there is no proof of the use of U.S. captive tigers in traditional medicines, the Service does not need to impose additional regulations on tiger breeders in the United States. Five commenters felt that, because there is no proof of such illegal trade within the United States, such trade is not a threat, and, therefore, this rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Our response: While we agree with the commenters on the benefits of the RTCA in combating illegal trade in tiger parts, we do not agree that the existing regulations adequately provide for the conservation of tigers. With the exemption for inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, it was difficult to determine whether activities involving tigers were legal because there was no requirement for a permit or other authorization. Monitoring of activities was also hampered by our inability to determine if tigers bred and sold under the exemption were actually inter-subspecific crossed or generic animals. By removing the exemption, we are reinstating regulations that already cover most other endangered and threatened species, thus ensuring better oversight and monitoring. This requirement will be another tool that can be used, in conjunction with the RTCA and other laws, to curb potentially illegal activities within the United States. While we have no evidence indicating that captive tigers are currently being illegally killed for their parts within the United States, we believe that, if wild tiger populations continue to decline, demand for captive tigers and their parts may increase. The final rule is reasonable in light of this potential threat and evidence of continuing declines in tiger population and range, and we have fully explained our reasons for removing the exemption.

    Issue 7: Two commenters felt that we made contradictory statements in the proposed rule when we said that individuals who wished to carry out otherwise prohibited activities with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers would need to register under the CBW regulations, but then also stated that we did not believe the breeding of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers provided a conservation benefit. In other words, they concluded that we would not actually register anyone with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers because of our perceived lack of conservation value of such animals.

    Our response: The commenters are correct that we do not believe that breeding inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, in and of itself, provides a conservation benefit, since the tigers are of unknown or mixed genetic origin. As such, inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers would not be good candidates for a well-managed conservation-oriented breeding program. In addition, it is unlikely that we would register an operation for the sole purpose of selling tigers across State lines, since a CBW registration is for the purpose of exchanging stock with other breeders or to hold surplus animals not needed for a breeding program. This does not mean, however, that we could not authorize individual permits if the activity being conducted enhanced the propagation or survival of the species in the wild. Under our regulations, it is possible to authorize interstate commerce for an inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger if the parties involved in the transaction are carrying out activities that enhance the propagation or survival of the species. While it is unlikely that such a commercial transaction would provide a direct benefit to the species, such as reintroduction, there may be indirect benefits that could be obtained from the transaction.

    It should also be noted that the requirement to show that authorizing an otherwise prohibited activity, such as interstate commerce, could be met through an individual or institution, or a group of individuals or institutions together, working to provide a benefit to the species in the wild. For example, if one or more zoological institutions were purchasing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers for educational and display purposes, they could provide support (e.g., via the solicitation of donations from visitors) to carry out in-situ conservation efforts in the tiger's native range. The Service prefers a clear, ongoing commitment of several years on the part of the applicant to provide in-situ conservation or research support. This ongoing commitment could be fulfilled by a group of institutions working together to maximize their resources for the benefit of tigers in the wild.

    Issue 8: Several commenters stated that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers have an educational value and, therefore, should still be exempt from the CBW registration to ensure that this benefit could continue. Many of these commenters felt that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are “ambassadors” for the wild tiger and its conservation. One commenter stated that availability of such tigers within the United States removed pressure on wild populations to supply animals for exhibition purposes. One commenter, noting that the Service previously excluded education as a sole justification for registration under the CBW regulations, questioned the basis of this exclusion.

    Our response: This rule does not address whether the display of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers has an educational value. It is possible that a professionally developed education program using inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers could indirectly benefit the wild populations of tigers by raising public awareness of the plight of the tiger. Furthermore, no permit or other authorization, including a CBW registration, is necessary to conduct educational programs with such tigers, including crossing State lines to make presentations involving the animals. Given the number of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers within the United States, the commenter is correct that wild-caught tigers are not in demand for educational purposes. The purpose of this rule, however, is to reestablish the monitoring and oversight benefits of the CBW regulations to all specimens of tigers, not just purebred specimens.

    On December 27, 1993, the Service published a final rule (58 FR 68323) that eliminated public education through exhibition of living wildlife as the sole justification for issuing a CBW registration under § 17.21(g). As one commenter correctly pointed out, the Service made the statement in the 1998 final rule exempting inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the CBW registration process (63 FR 48638) that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers should not be used to enhance the propagation of the species, but could be used for exhibition in a manner designed to educate the public about the ecological role and conservation needs of the species. While individuals are not precluded from continuing to provide educational opportunities to the public through the display of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, an educational purpose alone is not enough to support CBW registration per the 1993 rule. The basis for excluding education as the sole justification for a CBW registration was discussed in the final rule on that issue (58 FR 68323) and is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

    Issue 9: Two commenters raised questions about the listing status of the inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger. One commenter questioned whether inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers meet the standard of listing under the Act and, therefore, whether they are properly subject to regulation by the Service. Another commenter proposed that inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers within the United States are a new subspecies, the “American tiger.” This commenter provided a description of six “varieties” of “American tigers” that should be, as a group, a new subspecies.

    Our response: Whether these animals meet the listing criteria under section 4 of the Act is an issue outside the scope of this rulemaking process. Whether inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers within the United States would constitute a separate subspecies is a matter that should be addressed by taxonomists and is, therefore, outside the scope of this rulemaking process as well. However, currently the tiger is listed at the species level, not at the subspecies level, so all tiger specimens are covered by the listing.

    Issue 10: One commenter noted a study by the National Cancer Institute that found that one “generic” tiger in seven is actually a purebred member of a recognized subspecies, raising the question of how individuals can determine if their tiger is pure or an inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger. Another commenter raised the question of whether this rule would require genetic testing of tigers and how the cost of that testing would be covered.

    Our response: The first commenter was probably referring to a study published in 2008 in Current Biology1 that found 14-23 percent (approximately 1 in 7 or more) of the “generic” tigers tested were shown to have a verifiable subspecies ancestry (i.e., they are a pure subspecies). The tigers tested in this study came from locations in the United States and abroad. We note that our definition of “generic tiger” includes animals of unknown lineage. It is entirely possible that some animals of unknown lineage actually have a pure subspecies lineage, but the lack of information on their origin requires that they be treated as unknown for the purposes of conservation breeding.

    1 Shu-Jin Luo, Warren E. Johnson, Janice Martenson, Agostinho Antunes, Paolo Martelli, Olga Uphyrkina, Kathy Traylor-Holzer, James L.D. Smith and Stephen J. O'Brien. 2008. “Subspecies Genetic Assignments of Worldwide Captive Tigers Increase Conservation Value of Captive Populations”. Current Biology, 18, 592-596.

    Since pure and generic tigers would be treated the same in regards to permits issued under 50 CFR 17.22 (i.e., interstate and foreign commerce, take, import, or export), there would be no requirement to test tigers within the United States. However, if the owner of a breeding operation wished to become a CBW registrant, that person would need to show how the tigers he or she holds would contribute to the genetic management of the species within the United States. If the owner is unable to document the source and, therefore, subspecies of their tigers, it may be necessary to conduct genetic testing on his/her tigers to prove that they are not inter-specific crossed animals. The cost of such testing would be his/her responsibility.

    Issue 11: One commenter questioned the value of maintaining pure subspecies in captivity as a potential pool for reintroduction purposes if the plight of the wild tiger is so dire. The commenter's presumption was that zoos and private breeders do not have the capacity to maintain sufficient numbers of pure subspecies to provide enough specimens if reintroduction is needed. It is unclear whether the commenter meant that a need might develop to use tigers of mixed or unknown genetic ancestry for reintroduction purposes and that the survival of the species may rely on such tigers. However, the commenter expressed the view that efforts by the Service to limit the breeding of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are counterintuitive to the conservation of the species.

    Our response: The generally accepted approach to the captive breeding of tigers—or of any species—for conservation purposes is to maintain separate viable populations of each subspecies and to avoid, where possible, breeding tigers of unknown or questionable genetic heritage. Adequacy of founder representation and minimum viable population sizes are issues to be determined by conservation biologists and vary depending on the biological characteristics of the species, and are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of this rule is to establish a single approach to monitoring the otherwise prohibited activities involving any tiger within the United States.

    Issue 12: One commenter felt that the display of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers could generate funds for in-situ conservation efforts and should, therefore, be encouraged.

    Our response: We agree that the display of tigers, whether purebred subspecies or tigers of unknown genetic ancestry, could generate funds and resources for in-situ conservation efforts. This rule does not limit nor is it intended to discourage in-situ conservation efforts. The rule only provides the same level of monitoring and oversight for all tigers within the United States to ensure that activities carried out with this species are legal and consistent with the purposes of the Act.

    Removal of Inter-subspecific Crossed or Generic Tigers from 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6)

    We are amending the CBW regulations that implement the Act by removing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger (Panthera tigris) (i.e., specimens not identified or identifiable as members of Bengal, Sumatran, Siberian, or Indochinese subspecies (Panthera tigris tigris, P. t. sumatrae, P. t. altaica, and P. t. corbetti, respectively)) from paragraph (g)(6) of 50 CFR 17.21. This action eliminates the exemption from registering and reporting under the CBW regulations by persons who want to conduct otherwise prohibited activities under the Act with live, inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers born in the United States. This action does not alter the current listing of tigers. Inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers remain listed as endangered under the Act, and a person would need to qualify for an exemption or obtain an authorization under the remaining statutory and regulatory requirements to conduct any prohibited activities.

    We are changing the regulations to ensure that we maintain stricter control over the commercial movement and sale of captive tigers in the United States. As stated in the comment section, we do not believe that breeding inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, in and of itself, provides a conservation benefit for the long-term survival of the species. Inter-subspecific tiger crosses and animals of unknown genetic ancestry could not be used for maintaining genetic viability and distinctness of specific tiger subspecies. Tigers of unknown or mixed genetic origin are typically not maintained in a manner to ensure that inbreeding or other inappropriate matings of animals do not occur. By exempting inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the CBW registration process in 1998, we had inadvertently suggested that the breeding of these tigers, in and of itself, qualifies as conservation. By removing the exemption, we reinforce the value of conservation breeding of individual tiger subspecies through the CBW program.

    As stated in the proposed rule, we are unaware of any evidence that tiger parts are entering into trade from the captive U.S. population of tigers. However, we recognize that the use of tiger parts and products, including in traditional medicine, poses a significant threat to wild tiger populations. The United States has worked vigorously with other CITES countries to encourage not only the adoption of measures to protect wild tiger populations from poaching and illegal trade, but also the implementation of measures to ensure that breeding of tigers in captivity supports conservation goals and that tigers are not bred for trade in parts and products. While we do not have evidence that parts from captive-bred tigers in the United States are currently entering into international trade, we believe that demand for tiger parts could increase in the future. This threat, combined with the precarious status of tigers in the wild, lead us to conclude that the oversight provided by this final rule will benefit the species.

    The previous CBW exemption also created enforcement difficulties. Specifically, law enforcement cases have hinged on whether activities the Service has identified as illegal were actually exempted under the current regulations. By removing the exemption, persons engaged in otherwise prohibited activities will need to obtain a permit or register under the CBW program, giving the Service greater ability to bring enforcement cases for violations involving tigers.

    It should be stressed, however, that removing the exemption for inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers would not result in regulations by the Service of ownership, intrastate commerce, or noncommercial movement of these tigers across State lines, as long as they are not killed or harmed. These activities are not prohibited by the Act, and we have no authority to prohibit or otherwise regulate them.

    Finally, we reorganized paragraph (g)(6), redesignating subparagraphs to make the section clearer. With the exception of removing inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers, the text is essentially the same as it previously appeared in 50 CFR 17.21(g)(6).

    Required Determinations

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563): Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is significant because it may create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act: Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as one with annual revenue or employment that meets or is below an established size standard. We expect that the majority of the entities involved in taking, exporting, re-importing, and selling in interstate or foreign commerce of inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers would be considered small as defined by the SBA.

    Currently, businesses conducting activities with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers are exempt from registration under the CBW regulations, if the activities are consistent with the purposes of the ESA and CBW program. This rule would require businesses that are otherwise carrying out these activities to apply for authorization under the Act and pay an application fee of $100 for a one-time interstate commerce permit or $200 to register under the CBW program (valid for 5 years).

    Currently, there is no Federal or State mechanism in place that tracks or monitors the extent of business activities involving generic tigers. With the exemption from registration by facilities that are conducting activities in compliance with the current CBW regulations, FWS does not have data on how many businesses are involved in the interstate commerce of generic tigers, the number of businesses for which an interstate commerce permit or registration in the CBW program will be a viable option, and the economic impacts if prospective applicants are unable to either secure an interstate commerce permit or registration in the CBW program. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates some aspects of holding large cats like tigers, their authority does not extend to all facilities that maintain tigers. As such, there is not a centralized database or collection of data that would identify the number of facilities within the United States. While some State governments may monitor or even regulate some aspects of holding tigers, either pure-bred or generic, there is not a universal approach that would render any significant data on those facilities that hold tigers throughout the United States. Nonetheless, based on the comments received during the public comment period, FWS anticipates that the number of affected small businesses is small and either registration in the CBW program or an interstate commerce permit will be a viable option at a modest expense. Therefore, the regulatory change is not major in scope and will create only a modest financial or paperwork burden on the affected members of the public.

    We, therefore, certify that this rule would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act: This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This rule removes the inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers from the exemption to register under the CBW regulations. Individuals and captive-breeding operations would need to obtain endangered species permits or other authorization to engage in certain otherwise prohibited activities. This rule would not have a negative effect on the economy. It will affect all businesses, whether large or small, the same. There is not a disproportionate share of benefits for small or large businesses.

    b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies; or geographic regions. This rule would result in a small increase in the number of applications for permits or other authorizations to conduct otherwise prohibited activities with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers.

    c. Would not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.):

    a. This rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

    b. This rule would not produce a Federal requirement of $100 million or greater in any year and is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    Takings: Under Executive Order 12630, this rule would not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required. This rule is not considered to have takings implications because it allows individuals to obtain authorization for otherwise prohibited activities with the inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers when issuance criteria are met.

    Federalism: This revision to part 17 does not contain significant Federalism implications. A Federalism Assessment under Executive Order 13132 is not required.

    Civil Justice Reform: Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of subsections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

    Paperwork Reduction Act: This rule does not contain any new information collections or recordkeeping requirements for which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements for the Division of Management Authority's permit program and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0093, which expires May 31, 2017. 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.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The Service has determined that this action is a regulatory change that is administrative and procedural in nature. This rule requires that persons engaging in otherwise prohibited activities with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers register under the CBW regulations at 50 CFR 17.21(g), but does not change the standards in regard to prohibited activities or exemptions from these prohibitions in any way. Previously, any otherwise prohibited activity with an inter-subspecific crossed or generic tiger had to be for the purpose of enhancing the propagation or survival of the species, and that standard has not changed. Other requirements such as limitations with respect to nonliving wildlife, identification of animals to be re-imported, requirements for animals to be permanently exported, and recordkeeping requirements have not changed. The difference is that persons conducting these activities with inter-subspecific crossed or generic tigers that previously did not have to register will now have to register with the Service. As such, the amendment is categorically excluded from further NEPA review as provided by 43 CFR 46.210(i), of the Department of the Interior Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 final rule (73 FR 61292; October 15, 2008). No further documentation will be made.

    Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes: Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects.

    Energy Supply, Distribution or Use: Executive Order 13211 pertains to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This rule would not significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Data Quality Act: In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554).

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2011-0027 and upon request from the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we are amending part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 17—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.21 by revising paragraph (g)(6) to read as set forth below:
    § 17.21 Prohibitions.

    (g) * * *

    (6) Exemption from registration requirement. (i) If the conditions in paragraph (g)(6)(ii) of this section are met, then any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States seeking to engage in any of the activities authorized by paragraph (g)(1) of this section may do so without first registering with the Service with respect to the following species:

    (A) The bar-tailed pheasant (Syrmaticus humiae), Elliot's pheasant (S. ellioti), Mikado pheasant (S. mikado), brown eared pheasant (Crossoptilon mantchuricum), white eared pheasant (C. crossoptilon), cheer pheasant (Catreus wallichii), Edward's pheasant (Lophura edwardsi), Swinhoe's pheasant (L. swinhoii), Chinese monal (Lophophorus lhuysii), and Palawan peacock pheasant (Polyplectron emphanum);

    (B) Parakeets of the species Neophema pulchella and N. splendida;

    (C) The Laysan duck (Anas laysanensis); and

    (D) The white-winged wood duck (Cairina scutulata).

    (ii) Conditions for exemption to register. The following conditions must exist for persons dealing with the species listed in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section to be eligible for exemption from the requirement to register with the Service:

    (A) The purpose of the activity is to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected exempted species.

    (B) Such activity does not involve interstate or foreign commerce, in the course of a commercial activity, with respect to nonliving wildlife.

    (C) Each specimen to be reimported is uniquely identified by a band, tattoo, or other means that was reported in writing to an official of the Service at a port of export prior to export of the specimen from the United States.

    (D) No specimens of the taxa in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this section that were taken from the wild may be imported for breeding purposes absent a definitive showing that the need for new bloodlines can be met only by wild specimens, that suitable foreign-bred, captive individuals are unavailable, and that wild populations can sustain limited taking. In addition, an import permit must be issued under § 17.22.

    (E) Any permanent exports of such specimens meet the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this section.

    (F) Each person claiming the benefit of the exception in paragraph (g)(1) of this section must maintain accurate written records of activities, including births, deaths, and transfers of specimens, and make those records accessible to Service agents for inspection at reasonable hours as set forth in §§ 13.46 and 13.47 of this chapter.

    Dated: March 24, 2016. Michael J. Bean, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07762 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XE557 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the B season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 4, 2016, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., June 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management 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 B season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 5,460 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the B season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 5,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 460 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

    After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    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 delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 31, 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: April 1, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07905 Filed 4-1-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 66 Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2016-0026] Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of an updated and reissued system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. This system of records will continue to manage audits that are part of DHS/CBP's continuing oversight of customs brokers, importers, and other parties engaged in international trade activities, that are the subject of a regulatory audit or are identified in and related to the scope of an audit report.

    In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to reduce the number of exemptions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0026 by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, please visit http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: John Connors, (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is giving notice of a proposed rule to accompany an updated system of records notice titled, “DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records.”

    DHS/CBP conducts regulatory audits in support of its oversight of customs brokers licensed by DHS/CBP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641 to act as agents for importers in the entry of merchandise and payment of duties and fees. This system of records covers records about importers and other parties engaged in international trade activities that are the subject of a regulatory audit or are identified in and related to the scope of an audit report.

    Concurrent with this NPRM, elsewhere in the Federal Register, DHS/CBP is updating the “DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records” categories of records, authorities, and routine uses. DHS/CBP is updating the categories of records to include the collection of Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) or Social Security numbers (SSNs), also known as Federal Taxpayer Identifying Number, pursuant to 19 CFR 24.5, 19 CFR 149.3, and E.O. 9397, as amended by E.O. 13748. DHS/CBP collects this additional data to align RAAS with information provided by importers through the DHS/CBP Automated Commercial Environment System (ACE) data-source. DHS/CBP is also clarifying the category of records to include business and audit records collected or created as part of the audit process.

    DHS/CBP is clarifying the authorities section to include updated and more narrowly tailored authorities to permit the collection of EIN or SSN. 19 CFR 24.5 and 19 CFR 149.3 require that DHS/CBP collect Federal Taxpayer Identifying Numbers in association with services resulting in issuance of a bill or refund check upon adjustment of a cash collection or to document entities that are liable for payment of all duties and responsible for meeting all statutory or regulatory requirements incurred as a result of importation. Individuals or entities that do not have a SSN may submit an EIN in lieu of the SSN for merchandise entry purposes.

    DHS/CBP is making non-substantive edits to the Routine Uses A-G to align with previously published Departmental SORNs. This notice also includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and texts of the previously published notice.

    Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in DHS/CBP-014 RAAS may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.

    DHS/CBP previously published a Final Rule in the Federal Register to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act at 74 FR 45076 (August 31, 2009). DHS/CBP proposes to reduce the number of exemptions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements. The existing Final Rule for Privacy Act exemptions continues to apply until the new Final Rule is published. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

    The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

    DHS is revising the previously claimed exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records. DHS/CBP is not requesting an exemption with respect to information maintained in the system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a subject of an audit. The Privacy Act requires DHS to maintain an accounting of the disclosures made pursuant to all routines uses. Disclosing the fact that a law enforcement or intelligence agency has sought particular records may affect ongoing law enforcement activity. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), DHS will claim exemption from sec. (c)(3) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information.

    Some information in DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records relates to official DHS law enforcement activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS law enforcement activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS's ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; to protect the privacy of third parties; and to safeguard classified information. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

    The exemption proposed here is a standard law enforcement exemption exercised by a large number of Federal law enforcement agencies. In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case-by-case basis.

    A system of records notice for DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information, Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    2. In appendix C to part 5, revise paragraph 25 to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

    25. The Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by DHS and its Components. The DHS/CBP-014 RAAS System of Records is a repository of information held by DHS in connection with its several and varied missions and functions, including, but not limited to: The enforcement of civil and criminal laws; investigations, inquiries, and proceedings there under. The DHS/CBP-014 RAAS System of Records contains information that is collected by, on behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation with DHS and its Components and may contain personally identifiable information collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international government agencies. The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

    (a) From subsec. (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to

    (b) tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07894 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service 7 CFR Parts 251, 271, 272, and 277 [FNS-2016-0028] RIN 0584-AE44 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Promotion; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains a correction to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2016, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Promotion.” The Food and Nutrition Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, 81 FR 13290, on March 14, 2016, to implement section 4018 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Section 4018 created new limitations on the use of federal funds authorized in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA), for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) promotion and outreach activities. The summary of the proposed rule is being corrected to aid in clarity to the reader.

    DATES:

    To be assured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before May 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Rose Conroy, Branch Chief, Program Development Division, Program Design Branch, Food and Nutrition Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 810, Alexandria, VA 22302, or by phone at (703) 305-2803, or by email at [email protected]

    Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2016-05583, beginning on page 13290 in the issue of March 14, 2016, make the following correction in the Summary section. On page 13290 the Summary section is revised to read as follows:

    SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Section 4018 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. Section 4018 created new limitations on the use of federal funds authorized in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA), for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) promotion and outreach activities. Specifically, Section 4018 of the 2014 Farm Bill prohibits the use of Federal funds appropriated in the FNA from being used for recruitment activities designed to persuade an individual to apply for SNAP benefits; television, radio, or billboard advertisements that are designed to promote SNAP benefits and enrollment; or agreements with foreign governments designed to promote SNAP benefits and enrollment. The prohibition on using funds appropriated under the FNA for television, radio, or billboard advertisements does not apply to Disaster SNAP.

    Section 4018 also prohibits any entity that receives funds under the FNA from compensating any person engaged in outreach or recruitment activities based on the number of individuals who apply to receive SNAP benefits. Lastly, Section 4018 modifies Section 16(a)(4) of the FNA to prohibit the Federal government from paying administrative costs associated with recruitment activities designed to persuade an individual to apply for program benefits or that promote the program through television, radio, or billboard advertisements.

    This proposed rule would also impact the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), both of which receive funding and/or foods authorized under the FNA.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07454 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 13 CFR Part 123 RIN 3245-AG78 Disaster Assistance Loan Program; Disaster Loan Mitigation, Contractor Malfeasance and Secured Threshold AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) proposes to amend its disaster loan program regulations in response to changes made to the Small Business Act (the Act) by the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015 (the RISE Act). The first change would expand the definition of a mitigating measure to include the construction of a safe room or similar storm shelter designed to protect property and occupants. The second change would allow for an increase of the unsecured threshold for physical damage loans for non-major disasters. The third change would allow SBA to increase loan amounts to address contractor malfeasance. In addition, SBA proposes to make several technical corrections to conform certain regulatory provisions to existing statutory authority and remove an obsolete reference in part 123.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3245-AG78, by any of the following methods: (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://regulations.gov. Follow the specific instructions for submitting comments; (2) Fax: (202) 205-7728 or Email [email protected]; or (3) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    SBA will post all comments to this proposed rule on www.regulations.gov. If you wish to submit confidential business information (CBI) as defined in the User Notice at www.regulations.gov, you must submit such information to U.S. Small Business Administration, Jerome Edwards, Office of Disaster Assistance, 409 3rd Street SW., Mail code 2990, Washington, DC 20416, or send an email to [email protected] Highlight the information that you consider to be CBI and explain why you believe SBA should hold this information as confidential. SBA will review your information and determine whether it will make the information public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jerome Edwards, Office of Disaster Assistance 202-205-6734 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(b), authorizes SBA to make direct loans to homeowners, renters, businesses, and non-profit organizations that have been adversely affected by a disaster. After a declared disaster, SBA makes loans of up to $200,000 to homeowners and renters (plus up to $40,000 for personal property) and loans of up to $2 million to businesses of all sizes and non-profit organizations to assist with any uninsured and otherwise uncompensated physical losses sustained during the disaster. In addition to loans for the repair or replacement of damaged physical property, SBA also offers working capital loans, known as Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDLs), to small businesses, small agricultural cooperatives, and most private non-profit organizations that have suffered economic injury caused by a disaster. The maximum loan amount is $2 million for physical and economic injuries combined. SBA may waive this $2 million limit if a business is a major source of employment.

    The Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015, Public Law 114-88, 129 Stat. 686 (November 25, 2015), amended certain terms and conditions of SBA's Disaster Assistance program. As discussed below, this rulemaking proposes to implement three of those amendments, as set out in sections 1102, 2102 and 2107 of the RISE Act. SBA also proposes to make several minor technical amendments to the program regulations that, among other things, would ensure consistency between the program's regulatory and statutory authorities.

    Changes Made as a Result of the RISE Act

    Section 1102 of the RISE Act, Use of Physical Damage Disaster Loans to Construct Safe Rooms, expanded the definition of mitigation to include “construction of a safe room or similar storm shelter designed to protect property and occupants from tornadoes or other natural disasters, if such safe room or similar storm shelter is constructed in accordance with applicable standards issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.” This change allows SBA to include a safe room or storm shelter as a mitigating measure; therefore, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR 123.21 to reflect this change in the definition of a mitigation measure. By policy, SBA increases the amount of a disaster loan for mitigation purposes only when the mitigation protects or mitigates against damage from the same type of occurrence as the declared disaster. Revised § 123.21 would also clarify that a mitigation measure is something done for the purpose of protecting property (real and personal) and occupants. In addition, safe rooms and storm shelters would be included in the examples of mitigation measures.

    Section 2102 of the RISE Act, Collateral Requirements for Disaster Loans, increased SBA's unsecured loan limits for all disaster loans for a period of three years. In 2014, SBA published an Interim Final Rule, Disaster Assistance Loan Program; Disaster Loan Credit and Collateral Requirements (79 FR 22859, April 25, 2014), to raise the unsecured limit to $25,000 for economic injury loans for all disasters and for physical damage loans for major disasters. The unsecured limit for physical damage loans for non-major disasters continued to be $14,000, in accordance with the Small Business Act. Section 2102 of the RISE Act expanded on these previous changes by increasing the unsecured limit to $25,000 to include physical damage loans for non-major disasters for a period of three years, until November 25, 2018. Therefore, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR 123.11 to reflect a $25,000 unsecured threshold for all disaster declarations. After November 25, 2018, the unsecured limit for physical damage loans for non-major disasters would revert back to $14,000, unless Congress makes the increase permanent.

    Section 2107 of the RISE Act, Contractor Malfeasance, expanded SBA's ability to provide disaster assistance by expressly allowing for supplemental assistance for malfeasance by a contractor or other person and defining what constitutes malfeasance. Prior to implementation of the RISE Act, SBA provided assistance only for malfeasance by contractors, not malfeasance by any “other person” in connection with the loan, and did not allow for increases in the loan amount beyond the regulatory limit of $200,000 for repair or replacement of damaged property. The RISE Act gave SBA authority to increase a disaster loan when a contractor or other person engages in malfeasance in connection with repairs to, rehabilitation of, or replacement of property for which SBA made a disaster loan and the malfeasance results in substantial economic damage or substantial risks to health or safety. SBA proposes to revise 13 CFR 123.18, 123.20, and 123.105 to include details on what constitutes malfeasance, provide guidance on when borrowers are eligible to apply for loan increases due to malfeasance, and allow home loan borrowers to increase their loans up to an additional $200,000 for malfeasance. For business loans, the total maximum loan amount, including any increase for malfeasance, remains $2,000,000.

    The proposed changes made as a result of the RISE Act apply to all eligible recipients of SBA disaster loans for disasters declared on or after the effective date of the RISE Act, November 25, 2015.

    Technical Corrections

    In addition to the changes proposed as a result of the RISE Act, SBA is also proposing to make several technical corrections. SBA proposes to change the phrase “sudden physical event” to “sudden event” in 13 CFR 123.2 to conform the regulation to SBA's statutory definition of “disaster” in 15 U.S.C. 632(k). SBA proposes to revise 13 CFR 123.3 to remove the reference to “emergency” declarations in § 123.3(a)(1) in order to conform the regulations to SBA's statutory authority. SBA proposes this change to clarify that SBA disaster assistance is not automatically authorized when the President declares an emergency; such assistance may be available, however, if SBA declares a disaster under its own authority. Finally, SBA proposes to revise 13 CFR 123.13(a) to remove the reference to an expired OMB control number.

    SBA invites comments from interested members of the public on all changes proposed in this rule. These comments must be received on or before the close of the comment period noted in the DATES section of this document.

    Compliance with Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13132, and 13563 and the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 800.

    Executive Order 12988

    This action meets applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. This action does not have preemptive or retroactive effect.

    Executive Order 13132

    For the purposes of 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 the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, SBA determined that this proposed rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

    Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements and are affording the public 60 days to participate and provide comments.

    Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35)

    For purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, including small businesses. According to the RFA, when an agency issues a rule, the agency must prepare an analysis to determine whether the impact of the rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. However, the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule in lieu of preparing an analysis if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule conforms to recent legislative action made under the RISE Act and will implement new agency policies regarding the expansion of the definition of mitigation as it pertains to the Disaster Loan Program, and the inclusion of malfeasance.

    List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 123

    Disaster assistance, Loan programs-business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, SBA proposes to amend 13 CFR part 123 as follows:

    PART 123—DISASTER LOAN PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 632, 634(b)(6), 636(b), 636(d), 657n; Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, 1864; Pub. L. 103-75, 107 Stat. 739; and Pub. L. 106-50, 113 Stat. 245.

    2. Amend § 123.2 by revising the seventh sentence to read as follows:
    § 123.2 What are disaster loans and disaster declarations?

    * * * Sudden events that cause substantial economic injury may be disasters even if they do not cause physical damage to a victim's property. * * *

    3. Amend § 123.3 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    § 123.3 How are disaster declarations made?

    (a) * * *

    (1) The President declares a Major Disaster and authorizes Federal Assistance, including individual assistance (Assistance to Individuals and Households Program).

    4. Amend § 123.11 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

    § 123.11 Does SBA require collateral for any of its disaster loans?

    (a) * * *

    (2) Physical disaster home and physical disaster business loans. Generally, SBA will not require that you pledge collateral to secure a physical disaster home or physical disaster business loan of $25,000 or less. This authority expires on November 25, 2018, unless extended by statute.

    § 123.13 [Amended]
    5. Amend § 123.13 by removing the parenthetical phrase “(OMB Approval No. 3245-0122.)” from paragraph (a). 6. Amend § 123.18 by: a. Redesignating the undesignated text as paragraph (a); b. Revising the first sentence of the redesignated paragraph (a); and c. Adding paragraph (b).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 123.18 Can I request an increase in the amount of a physical disaster loan?

    (a) Generally, SBA will consider your request for an increase in your loan if you can show that the eligible cost of repair or replacement of damages increased because of events occurring after the loan approval that were beyond your control.* * *

    (b) For all disasters occurring on or after November 25, 2015, you may also request an increase in your loan if you suffered substantial economic damage or substantial risks to health or safety as a result of malfeasance in connection with the repair or replacement of real property or business machinery and equipment for which SBA made a disaster loan. See § 123.105 for limits on home loan amounts and § 123.202 for limits on business loan amounts. Malfeasance may include, but is not limited to, nonperformance of all or any portion of the work for which a contractor was paid, work that does not meet acceptable standards, or use of substandard materials.

    7. Amend § 123.20 by redesignating the undesignated text as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 123.20 How long do I have to request an increase in the amount of a physical disaster loan or an economic injury loan?

    (a) * * *

    (b) For physical disaster loan increases requested under § 123.18(b) as a result of malfeasance, the request must be received not later than two years after the date of final disbursement.

    8. Amend § 123.21 by revising the first and third sentences to read as follows:
    § 123.21 What is a mitigation measure?

    A mitigation measure is something done for the purpose of protecting property and occupants against disaster related damage.* * * Examples of mitigation measures include building retaining walls, sea walls, grading and contouring land, elevating flood prone structures, relocating utilities, constructing a safe room or similar storm shelter (if such safe room or similar storm shelter is constructed in accordance with applicable standards issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), or retrofitting structures to protect against high winds, earthquakes, flood, wildfires, or other physical disasters.* * *

    9. Amend § 123.105 by: a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; b. Removing the word “and” from paragraph (a)(3); c. Revising paragraph (a)(4); and d. Adding paragraph (a)(5).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 123.105 How much can I borrow with a home disaster loan and what limits apply on use of funds and repayment terms?

    (a) There are limits on how much money you can borrow for particular purposes:

    (4) 20 percent of the verified loss (not including refinancing or malfeasance), before deduction of compensation from other sources, up to a maximum of $200,000 for post-disaster mitigation (see § 123.107); and

    (5) $200,000 for eligible malfeasance, pursuant to § 123.18.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Maria Contreras-Sweet, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07750 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 460 RIN 3084-AB40 Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of the Commission's systematic review of all current FTC rules and guides, the Commission requests public comment on the overall costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact of the FTC's “Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation” (the “R-value Rule” or “Rule”).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write: “16 CFR part 460—R-value Rule Review, File No. R811001” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/rvaluerule by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “16 CFR part 460—R-value Rule Review, Matter No. R811001” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Thermal insulation is an important energy-savings product that reduces consumers' heating and cooling costs and increases their home energy efficiency. The Commission promulgated the R-value Rule, found at 16 CFR part 460 (“the current Rule” or “the current R-value Rule”), in 1979 to address the failure of the home insulation marketplace to provide essential pre-purchase information to consumers, primarily an insulation product's “R-value.” 1 An insulation product's “R-value” rates the product's ability to restrict heat flow and, therefore, reduce energy costs. The higher the R-value, the better the product's insulating ability. R-value ratings vary among different types and forms of home insulations and even among products of the same type and form.

    1 The Commission promulgated the current R-value Rule pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 57a. The current Rule became effective on September 30, 1980. See 44 FR 50218 (Aug. 27, 1979).

    The FTC's current R-value Rule provides substantiation and disclosure requirements for insulation products used in the residential market and prohibits certain claims unless they are true. Specifically, the current Rule requires insulation sellers to disclose the insulation product's R-value and related information for their products based on uniform, industry-adopted test procedures.2 This information enables consumers to evaluate the performance and cost effectiveness of competing insulation products.

    2 Additional Commission rules or guides may also apply to home insulation sellers. For example, the Commission's rules concerning Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions, and the Pre-sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR parts 701 and 702, specify warranty requirements; and the Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR part 260, address the application of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, to environmental advertising and marketing claims (e.g., recycled material claims). Further, section 5 declares that unfair or deceptive acts or practices are unlawful, and requires that advertisers and other sellers have a reasonable basis for advertising and other promotional claims before they are disseminated. See Deception Policy Statement, appended to Cliffdale Assoc., Inc., 103 FTC 110, 174 (1984); and FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, appended to International Harvester Co., 104 F.T.C. 949 (1984); and Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 49 FR 30999 (Aug. 2, 1984), reprinted in Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984).

    A. Products Covered

    The R-value Rule covers all “home insulation products.” Under the current Rule, the term “insulation” includes any product “mainly used to slow down heat flow” from, for example, a heated interior through exterior walls to the outside.3 The current Rule covers most types or forms of insulation marketed for use in residential structures, whether or not the Rule specifically refers to such insulation.4 It does not cover insulation sold for use in commercial (including industrial) buildings. In addition, it generally does not apply to non-insulation products with insulating characteristics, such as storm windows or storm doors.

    3See 16 CFR 460.2.

    4 16 CFR part 460 does not cover pipe insulation or any type of duct insulation except for duct wrap.

    Home insulation falls into two basic categories: “mass” and “reflective.” Mass insulations reduce heat transfer by conduction (through the insulation's mass), convection (air movement within, and through, the air spaces inside the insulation), and radiation. Reflective insulations (primarily aluminum foils) reduce heat transfer when installed facing an airspace. Within these basic categories, home insulation is sold in various types or materials (e.g., fiberglass, cellulose, polyurethane, aluminum foil) and forms (e.g., batt, dry-applied loose-fill, spray-applied, board stock, multi-sheet reflective).

    B. Covered Parties

    The current Rule applies to home insulation manufacturers, professional installers, retailers who sell insulation to consumers for do-it-yourself installation, and new home sellers, including sellers of manufactured housing. It also applies to testing laboratories that conduct R-value tests for home insulation manufacturers or other sellers who base their R-value claims on these test results.

    C. The Rule's Basis

    The Commission first issued the current R-value Rule in response to a variety of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the insulation industry. Specifically, the Commission found that many sellers: (1) Failed to disclose R-values, impeding informed purchasing decisions and misleading consumers who based their purchases on price or thickness alone; (2) exaggerated R-value disclosures and often failed to account for material factors (e.g., aging, settling) that reduce thermal performance; (3) failed to inform consumers about R-value's meaning and importance; (4) exaggerated fuel bill savings and often did not disclose that savings vary depending on consumers' particular circumstances; or (5) falsely claimed that consumers' insulation purchases would qualify for tax credits, or that products had been “certified” or “favored” by Federal agencies.5

    5 44 FR at 50222-24 (Aug. 27, 1979).

    D. The Rule's Requirements

    The current Rule requires manufacturers and others who sell home insulation to disclose R-value and related information (e.g., thickness, coverage area per package) on package labels and manufacturers' fact sheets. R-value disclosures must be derived from tests conducted according to one of four specified American Society of Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) test procedures that measure thermal performance under “steady-state” (i.e., static) conditions.6 For mass insulations, the required tests include ASTM C-177, C-236, C-518, and C-976.7 Industry members must conduct tests for mass insulation products on the insulation material alone (excluding any airspace) at a mean temperature of 75 °F. The current Rule requires testing for reflective insulation products according to either ASTM C 236-89 (1993) or ASTM C 976-90, which generate R-values for insulation systems (such as those that include one or more air spaces).8 The current Rule's R-value tests account for certain factors that can affect insulation's thermal performance. For example, the current Rule's R-value tests for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene insulation account for aging, and the required tests for loose-fill insulation products reflect the effect of settling on R-values.9

    6 The current Rule incorporates by reference ASTM's test procedures, which ASTM reviews and revises periodically. Under § 460.7 of the Rule, the Commission will accept, but not require, the use of a revised version of any of these standards 90 days after ASTM adopts and publishes the revision. The Commission may, however, reopen the rulemaking proceeding during the 90-day period, or at any later time, to consider whether it should require use of the revised procedure or reject it under § 460.5.

    7 44 FR 50218, at 50226, n. 189.

    8 The R-value of a single-sheet reflective insulation product must be tested under ASTM E408 or another test method that provides comparable results.

    9 44 FR at 50219-20, 50227-28 (Aug. 27, 1979).

    The current Rule also requires specific disclosures on manufacturer product labels and fact sheets, installer receipts, and new home seller contracts. For example, insulation labels must display, among other things, the product's R-value and the statement “R means resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power.” 10 The current Rule also requires that certain affirmative disclosures appear in advertising and other promotional materials (including those on the Internet) that contain an R-value, price, thickness, or energy-saving claim, or compare one type of insulation to another. For example, if an advertisement contains an R-value, it must disclose the type of insulation being sold and the thickness needed to get that R-value, as well as the statement: “The higher the R-value, the greater the insulating power. Ask your seller for the fact sheet on R-values.” In addition, if an advertisement contains an energy saving claim, it must disclose: “Savings vary. Find out why in the seller's fact sheet on R-values. Higher R-values mean greater insulating power.” 11

    10 16 CFR 460.12(c).

    11 The current Rule requires manufacturers and other sellers to have a “reasonable basis” for any energy-saving claims they make. 16 CFR 460.19. Although the current Rule does not specify how they must substantiate such claims, the Commission explained when issuing the Rule that scientifically reliable measurements of fuel use in actual houses, or reliable computer models or methods of heat flow calculations, would meet the reasonable basis standard. 44 FR at 50233-34 (Aug. 27, 1979). Sellers other than manufacturers can rely on the manufacturer's claims unless they know, or should know, that the manufacturer lacks a reasonable basis for the claims.

    II. Regulatory Review Program

    The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. As part of its last review in 2005, the Commission issued several amendments to update and improve the Rule.12

    12 70 FR 31258 (May 31, 2005).

    With this document, the Commission initiates a new review. The Commission solicits comments on, among other things, the economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the R-value Rule; the Rule's benefits to consumers; and the burdens it places on industry members subject to the requirements, including small businesses.

    III. Issues for Comments

    To aid commenters in submitting information, the Commission has prepared the following specific questions related to the R-value Rule. The Commission seeks comments on these and any other issues related to the Rule's current requirements. In their replies, commenters should provide any available evidence that supports their position.

    A. General Regulatory Review Questions

    (1) Need: Is there a continuing need for the Rule? Why or why not?

    (2) Benefits and Costs to Consumers: What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers, and does the Rule impose any significant costs on consumers?

    (3) Benefits and Costs to Industry Members: What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, and does the Rule impose any significant costs, including costs of compliance, on businesses, including small businesses?

    (4) Recommended Changes: What modifications, if any, should the Commission make to the Rule to increase its benefits or reduce its costs? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses?

    (5) Impact on Information: What impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers?

    (6) Compliance: Provide any evidence concerning the degree of industry compliance with the Rule. Does this evidence indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?

    (7) Unnecessary Provisions: Provide any evidence concerning whether any of the Rule's provisions are no longer necessary. Explain why these provisions are unnecessary.

    (8) Additional Unfair or Deceptive Practices: What potentially unfair or deceptive practices, not covered by the Rule, related to insulation products are occurring in the marketplace? Are such practices prevalent in the market? If so, please describe such practices, including their impact on consumers. Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer complaints, that demonstrates the extent of such practices. Provide any evidence that demonstrates whether such practices cause consumer injury. With reference to such practices, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?

    (9) Product Coverage: Should the Commission broaden the Rule to include products not currently covered? Provide any evidence that supports your position. What potentially unfair or deceptive practices related to products not covered by the Rule are occurring in the marketplace? Are such practices prevalent in the market? If so, please describe such practices, including their impact on consumers. Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer complaints, that demonstrates the extent of such practices. Provide any evidence that demonstrates whether such practices cause consumer injury.

    (10) Technological or Economic Changes: What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account for current or impending changes in technology or economic conditions? How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses?

    (11) Conflicts With Other Requirements: Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other Federal, State, or local laws or regulations? If so, how? Provide any evidence that supports your position. With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not? Are there any Rule changes necessary to help state law enforcement agencies combat deceptive practices in the insulation market? Provide any evidence concerning whether the Rule has assisted in promoting national consistency with respect to the advertising of insulation products.

    B. Specific Questions Related to the R-Value Rule

    (1) Aging of Cellular Plastics: Should the Commission update the required test procedures for the aging of cellular plastic insulations under 460.5(a)(1) to ensure consistency among R-value claims and to otherwise prevent deception? Specifically, should the Commission amend the Rule to require ASTM 1303 (“Standard Test Method for Predicting Long-Term Thermal Resistance of Closed-Cell Foam Insulation”) or a different test? If so, to which products should this test apply? 13

    13 Certain types of cellular plastics insulations (e.g., polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded polystyrene boardstock insulations) contain a gas other than normal air in the product's voids (i.e., small spaces or bubbles throughout the material). Such gas gives the product an initial R-value that is higher than it would have if the voids contained normal air. However, the R-value for these insulations decreases over time as the gas escapes the material and is replaced by normal air.

    The current Rule addresses this aging process by requiring that R-value tests be performed on specimens that “fully reflect the effect of aging on the product's R-value.” Section 460.5(a)(1) of the Rule accepts the use of the “accelerated aging” procedure in General Services Administration (“GSA”) Purchase Specification HH-I-530A (which was in effect at the time the Commission promulgated the Rule) as a permissible “safe harbor” procedure, but also allows manufacturers to use “another reliable procedure.”

    (2) Affirmative Disclosures: Should the Commission consider changing, adding, or removing affirmative disclosures required by the Rule for labeling and advertising related to mass insulation, reflective insulation, or radiant barriers?

    (3) Foam Insulation: Given the significant increase in the use of foam insulation products since the last Rule review, should the Commission consider any Rule changes to help prevent deception in the marketing of such products, or reduce unnecessary burdens on sellers?

    (4) Testing Requirements: Should the Commission consider any changes to the testing provisions in the Rule? Such potential changes include, but are not limited to, test updates, the addition of new or existing tests not currently referenced in the Rule, or changes to other testing-related requirement such as the Rule's “tolerance” provision (§ 460.8).14 Are there any tests currently referenced in the Rule that should be removed?

    14 The tolerance provision (§ 460.8) states that no individual specimen of the insulation an industry member sells can have an R-value more than 10% below the R-value shown on the product's label.

    IV. Comment Submissions

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before June 6, 2016. Write “16 CFR part 460—R-value Rule Review, File No. R811001” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential,” as discussed in section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online, or send them to the Commission by courier or overnight service. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/r-valuereview, by following the instruction on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “16 CFR part 460—R-value Rule Review, File No. R811001” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this ANPR and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before June 6, 2016. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07679 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0011] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, on August 13, and August 14, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0011 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. on August 13, and August 14, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the Bucksport/Lake Murray Drag Boat Spring Nationals, a series of high speed boat races.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, on August 13 and August 14, 2016. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss the First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866 or under section 1 of E.O. 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation would be enforced for only seven hours a day over a two day period; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities 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. We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.T07-0011 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0011 Special Local Regulations; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed by a line connecting the following points: point 1 in position 33°39′13″ N., 079°05′36″ W.; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′17″ N., 079°05′46″ W.; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′53″ N., 079°05′39″ W.; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′54″ N, 079°05′31″ W.; thence north back to point 1. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

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

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

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

    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced daily on August 13 and August 14, 2016 from 12 p.m. until 7 p.m.

    Dated: March 29, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07898 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0010] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, on July 9 and July 10, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0010 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. on July 9, and July 10, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's Authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of life on the navigable water of the United States during the Bucksport/Lake Murray Drag Boat Spring Nationals, a series of high speed boat races.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, on July 9 and July 10, 2016. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss the First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866 or under section 1 of E.O. 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation would be enforced for only seven hours a day over a two-day period; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities 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. We have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.T07-0010 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0010 Special Local Regulations; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed by a line connecting the following points: Point 1 in position 33°39′13″ N., 079°05′36″ W.; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′17″ N., 079°05′46″ W.; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′53″ N., 079°05′39″ W.; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′54″ N., 079°05′31″ W.; thence north back to point 1. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

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

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

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

    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 12 p.m. until 7 p.m. daily on July 9 and July 10, 2016.

    Dated: March 29, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07891 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 16-303; MB Docket No. 16-74; RM-11763] Radio Broadcasting Services; Raymond, Washington AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document proposes to amend the FM Table of Allotments by allotting Channel 300A at Raymond, Washington, as the community's second or third local service. After the filing of the petition, a change of community application was filed for Station KBSG(FM) from Westport, Washington, to Raymond, Washington. Therefore, if the application is granted prior to the issuance of the Report and Order in this proceeding, Channel 300A would be a third local service at Raymond, if allotted. A staff engineering analysis indicates that Channel 300A can be allotted to Raymond consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of the Commission's Rules with a site restriction 4.7 kilometers (3.0 miles) southwest of the community. The reference coordinates are 46-38-49 NL and 123-45-11 WL.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed on or before May 16, 2016, and reply comments on or before May 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the rule making petitioner and the counter proponent as follows: Peter Gutmann, Esq., Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, 1200 19th Street NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 16-74, adopted March 22, 2016, and released March 23, 2016. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.

    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contacts.

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

    Federal Communications Commission. James Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

    § 73.202 [Amended]
    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Washington, is amended by adding Raymond, Channel 300A.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07888 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0021] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection AGENCY:

    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Denial of petition for rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document denies a rulemaking petition submitted by Mr. James E. Hofferberth on April 1, 2013. His petition includes two requests: (1) To regulate the performance of supplementary automotive restraint systems that are marketed specifically for pregnant women; and (2) to require prominent warning labels in all vehicles with the intent of informing pregnant women that “seat belts could injure or kill their unborn child,” specifically by crushing the unborn baby in a frontal crash. NHTSA is denying the petition to regulate the performance of these systems because the agency does not have sufficient information at this time to state whether there is an additional net safety benefit/disbenefit to be derived from their use or whether one type of device is superior to another. NHTSA is denying the petition for labeling because this would provide advice that, if followed, would threaten the safety of both the mother and the unborn child in a crash.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Louis Molino, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-1740, Facsimile: (202) 493-2990.

    For Legal Issues: Mr. John D. Piazza, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. Past Petition for Rulemaking B. Agency Position: Pregnant Women Should Wear Their Seat Belts C. Pregnant Women in Motor Vehicle Crashes 1. Past Studies 2. Available Field Data

    (a) Data Sources (b) NASS CDS Data (c) NHTSA Case Studies II. Current Petition III. NHTSA's Consideration of the Petition A. General Principles B. Analysis of the Petition IV. Future Plans V. Conclusion I. Background

    In a letter dated April 1, 2013, Mr. James E. Hofferberth petitioned NHTSA to regulate the performance of supplementary automotive restraint systems for pregnant women and to also require prominent warning labels in all vehicles with the intent of informing pregnant women that “seat belts could injure or kill their unborn child.” This is the petitioner's second request for rulemaking regarding the safety of seat belts for pregnant women.

    A. Past Petition for Rulemaking

    In 2005, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from this same petitioner, Mr. James E. Hofferberth, requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to require an advisory placard warning occupants that seat belts should not be worn by pregnant women. On March 23, 2006, NHTSA published a Federal Register notice (71 FR 14675) denying that petition because the requested warning label would provide advice that, if followed, would threaten the safety of both the mother and the unborn child in a crash.

    B. Agency Position: Pregnant Women Should Wear Their Seat Belts

    NHTSA recommends that pregnant women wear their seat belts, as does the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).1 NHTSA publishes a flyer 2 developed in conjunction with ACOG and the National Healthy Babies Coalition that addresses this topic. The flyer describes the proper way for a pregnant woman to position her seat and to wear both the shoulder and lap belt portion of her seat belt, and it also explains that pregnant women should wear their seat belts even in vehicles equipped with air bags.

    1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “Car Safety for You and Your Baby, Frequently Asked Questions: FAQ018, Pregnancy,” August 2011, http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq018.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130603T1624145840.

    2 NHTSA, The Pregnant Woman's Guide to Buckling Up, Your Top 5 Seat Belt Questions Answered, March 2010, http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/newtsm/tk-bua/PregnantWomenSeatBeltFlyer.pdf.

    The safety benefits to pregnant women from wearing seat belts are supported by a research study,3 which concluded that “[p]roper restraint use, with and without air bag deployment, generally leads to acceptable fetal outcomes in lower severity crashes, while it does not affect fetal outcome in high-severity crashes.” The study concluded that “compared to properly restrained pregnant occupants, improperly restrained occupants have a higher risk of adverse fetal outcome in lower severity crashes.” It is also recommended that all pregnant women seek medical attention after a car crash regardless of the severity of maternal injury. NHTSA and other experts agree that the best way to protect an unborn child is to protect the mother.4

    3 Klinich, K. D., Schneidier, L. W., Moore, J. L., Pearlman, M. D., entitled “Investigations of Crashes Involving Pregnant Occupants,” dated 1999. This work was supported by General Motors Corporation, pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    4 Duma, S., Moorcroft, D., Stitzel, J., Duma, G., entitled “A Computational Model of the Pregnant Occupant: Effects of Restraint Usage and Occupant Position in Fetal Injury Risk,” published June 2005 in the Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.

    C. Pregnant Women in Motor Vehicle Crashes

    The agency conducted an extensive review in its analysis of the petition. This included a review of technical literature, including a study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), as well as the papers cited by the petitioner. The agency also conducted a full review of the NHTSA field data repositories for evidence of supplementary automotive restraints causing harm to pregnant women in motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). The agency's findings are provided in the following sections of this notice, and they reaffirm the position stated in the 2006 denial notice.

    1. Past Studies

    NHTSA has sponsored research studying and demonstrating the effectiveness of properly adjusted restraint systems for pregnant women from as early as 1971,5 when seat belts composed of both a lap and shoulder portion were not as prevalent as they are today. Other research, independent of NHTSA, has also been conducted, and both biomedical research and restraint technologies have advanced over time. For example, a 1998 paper written by researchers at UMTRI explains that the unborn baby is protected by amniotic fluid, which isolates the unborn baby by acting as a shock absorber.6 This amniotic fluid is what naturally resists the forces from the lap portion of a seat belt, and it prevents the belt from penetrating through the unborn baby's body. Mr. Hofferberth's petition claims that the belt penetrates through the unborn baby's body.

    5 King, A. I., Crosby, W. M., Stout, L. C., Eppinger, R. H., entitled “Effects of Lap Belt and Three-Point Restraints on Pregnant Baboons Subjected to Deceleration,” published in 1971 in the 15th Stapp Crash Conference Proceedings and the Society of Automotive Engineers as paper #710850.

    6 Klinich, K. D., Schneidier, L. W., Moore, J. L., Pearlman, M. D., entitled “Injuries to Pregnant Occupants in Automotive Crashes,” published October 1998 in the 42nd Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

    More recently, a 2008 paper written by these same researchers at UMTRI 7 summarized a study in which in-depth investigations of MVCs involving pregnant women were conducted, with a focus on determining how restraint conditions and specific crash characteristics had affected the outcome of the unborn baby. Studies conducted up to this point generally did not include complete and accurate information about crash severity and restraint use, or they emphasized crashes with adverse outcomes for the unborn babies in order to illustrate unusual and/or severe injuries. By including crashes with both positive and adverse outcomes for the unborn baby and also studying both belted and unbelted pregnant women, this study provided medical practitioners and safety engineers more of a comprehensive, quantitative analysis for giving advice to pregnant women and improving the design of vehicle restraints.

    7 Klinich, K. D., Flannagan, C. A., Rupp, J. D., et al, entitled, “Fetal outcome in motor-vehicle crashes: effects of crash characteristics and maternal restraint,” published April 2008 in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

    The 57 investigated cases all involved women of at least 20 weeks gestation who were involved in a motor vehicle crash that was not a rollover and who agreed to participate. Natural spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation being not uncommon, which made association of fetal loss so early in pregnancy with an MVC questionable, and the difficulty in determining injury causation to occupants during a rollover event 8 resulted in cases with these two factors being excluded. Case subject interviews and examinations of physical evidence were used to determine seat belt use, and estimated change in velocity (delta-V) from a crash reconstruction program was used to determine crash severity. The outcome of the unborn baby was studied for a period of one month after the crash took place, and these outcomes were classified as either good, minor complications, major complications, or fetal loss. Injuries to the mothers were classified using the Injury Severity Score (ISS), excluding injuries to the placenta or uterus, and these scores were used to classify the mothers' injuries as either nonexistent, minor, moderate, or major. Maternal death was also tracked, regardless of the mother's ISS. Restraints were classified as either proper (3-point belt or 3-point belt plus air bag) or improper (unrestrained, air bag only, and shoulder belt only with air bag, and shoulder belt only without air bag).9

    8 Excluding rollover events may have created a slight bias in the database. The paper states that “. . . rollovers account for only 2 percent of all crashes annually in the United States. The effect of this exclusion is therefore expected to have minimal impact on the study findings.”

    9 None of the maternal occupants in the cases studied wore only a lap belt.

    The database created by this study became the largest collection of MVCs involving pregnant women including detailed quantitative information about both the crash event and the outcome for the unborn baby, with a focus on crashes with both positive and negative fetal outcomes. The seat belt usage rate in the database was reported as 72 percent,10 and the study results showed a positive effect on fetal outcome from the mother's proper use of a seat belt during a crash. The statistical risk curves from this study's data analysis “indicate[d] that an 84 percent reduction in risk of adverse fetal outcome is obtained by properly wearing a seatbelt. On the basis of this relative risk and an overall belt use rate of 80 percent, unbelted pregnant women sustain an estimated 62 percent of all fetal losses in motor vehicle crashes . . . Crash severity is the factor most strongly associated with fetal outcome . . . Claims that restraints cause adverse fetal outcomes cannot be substantiated without reliable information on crash severity . . . [M]aternal injury is predictive of fetal outcome, and proper restraint use reduces maternal injury severity.”

    10 This statistic was reported in the 2008 Klinich paper, referring to the 2005 NHTSA report, DOT HS 810 623, Traffic Safety Facts 2005. A more specific comparison would be the seat belt use rate for women of likely childbearing age.

    2. Available Field Data (a) Data Sources

    To analyze the claims in the petition, the agency studied crashes involving pregnant women in the applicable NHTSA data repositories: Artemis,11 the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS),12 the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS),13 and the Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program.14 Artemis does not currently contain any entries related to complaints or reported injuries resulting from the use of supplemental restraint devices. Although FARS does capture information about fetal demise, its fetal demise data-capturing capabilities are limited because it utilizes the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) definition 15 of a person as “any living human . . . [A] fetus is considered to be part of a pregnant woman rather than a separate individual.” 16 Hence, FARS only captures information about fetal demise if someone else involved in the crash also expired. NASS CDS and SCI cases were also consulted for the following analysis. Though the sample of pregnant women in NASS CDS is relatively small, it is an appropriate and applicable source of data to explore the crash risks for this cohort because it is from a nationally representative sample.17 SCI cases are intended to provide an engineering perspective on anecdotal data, examining special crash circumstances or outcomes. As discussed below, an examination of NASS CDS and SCI data reaffirmed NHTSA's current position that pregnant women should wear a seat belt.

    11 Artemis is the agency's repository of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment defects. It contains consumer complaints and manufacturer early warning and reporting information, recalls, and safety defect investigations.

    12 FARS is a census of fatal motor vehicle crashes from 1975 to the present from the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To qualify as a FARS case, the death of either a non-motorist or a motorist must occur within 30 days of the crash and the vehicle must be traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public.

    13 NASS CDS is a database containing a probability sample of all police reported crashes in the U.S. Cases are chosen from all police reported crashes involving a harmful event (property damage and/or personal injury) resulting from a crash and involving at least one towed passenger car, light truck, or van in transport on a trafficway.

    14 SCI cases are selective, highly detailed and in-depth crash investigations using data from police and insurance reports as well as medical records, site and vehicle inspections, and interviews.

    15 DOT HS 811 694, 2011 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) General Estimates System (GES) Coding and Validation Manual, Page 5, Section 103.1, published 2012.

    16 Section 2.1.1 of standard ANSI D16.1-2007, the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, Seventh Edition, prepared by the D16 Committee on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents under the direction of the Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals of the National Safety Council Highway Traffic Safety Section and approved on August 2, 2007 by the American National Standards Institute, Inc. Board of Standards Review.

    17 In 2009, NASS CDS started collecting only partial occupant assessment records and no occupant injury records for vehicles more than 10 model years old. Information about occupant seat belt usage, a woman's pregnancy and the status of a fetus comes solely from a police report for these vehicles more than 10 model years old, and typically police reports subscribe to Section 2.1.1 of standard ANSI D16.1-2007 in regards to the fetus being considered an occupant.

    (b) NASS CDS Data

    NASS CDS started tracking fetal demise in 2006. The sampling is designed in such a way that it is possible to use the data to compute estimates representative of the entire country through application of a multiplier (case weight) to each NASS CDS case.18 During this six-year time period there was a weighted estimate of 18,859,898 occupants of passenger vehicles involved in crashes qualifying as NASS CDS cases across the United States. Of these occupants, 0.6 percent [112,341/18,859,898] were pregnant women. The maternal fatality rate for this data set was 0.22 percent [245/112,341]. Where seat belt use was known, 85.0 percent of the pregnant women were reportedly wearing a seat belt and 15.0 percent were not.19 Of the pregnant women reported to be wearing a seat belt, 99.7 percent [87,065/87,365] did not suffer a uterine or placental injury.

    18 DOT HS 811 675, National Automotive Sampling System—Crashworthiness Data System 2011 Analytical User's Manual, Page 6, Section 3, “The Sampling System and Sample Design,” published October 2012.

    19 The seat belt wearing status of 8.5 percent [9,533/112,341] of the pregnant females was reported as unknown. It should also be noted that those coded as wearing a seat belt were not necessarily wearing the seat belt correctly.

    The weighted estimate of 112,341 pregnant women was derived from 439 unweighted cases. Twenty-four of these 439 cases were coded as involving the death of an unborn child. However, the agency believes that four of these cases were miscoded with respect to fetal demise.20 In addition, one of the twenty-four cases involved a crash for which a NASS investigator inspection of the vehicle was not permitted due to a pending legal case.21 These five cases were excluded from the data set used for the analysis, and the 19 remaining cases correspond to a weighted estimate of 2,460 pregnant women who lost their unborn baby following a crash. The weighted data show that 2.2 percent of pregnant women lost an unborn child after being involved in a crash during this 6 year period, and 99.9 percent [87,251/87,365] of those known to be wearing a seat belt did not lose an unborn child due to a seat belt-caused uterine or placental injury.

    20 Cases 2007-43-199, 2008-43-24, 2009-43-188, and 2010-78-43 were flagged in the database as involving fetal demise, but they were excluded because examination of the case files provided convincing evidence that these were likely miscoded.

    21 Because both vehicle occupants perished in the crash, occupant interviews could not be conducted.

    Due to the small number of cases involving pregnant women who lost an unborn child after a crash and variation in the NASS CDS case weight factors applied to small numbers,22 the following statistics associated with the data are provided for illustration only. The known belt use rate 23 for the fetal demise data set was 85.1 percent [2,094/2,460], which is nearly identical to the known belt use rate for the data set of 112,341 pregnant women previously described. The maternal fatality rate was 9.1 percent [223/2,460]. This is more than forty times the maternal fatality rate for the data set of all pregnant women (0.22 percent). The rate of placental injury in this data set was 42.4 percent [155/366] for the unbelted pregnant women, but only 5.4 percent [114/2,094] for the belted. Placental injuries sustained by the unbelted women were caused by contact with either the steering wheel or the ground after ejection from the vehicle. The maternal fatality rate for the unbelted occupants with fetal demise was 30.3 percent [111/366] but only 5.3 percent [112/2,094] for the belted occupants. For belted occupants, 94.6 percent [1,980/2,094] of the pregnant women who lost an unborn child did not suffer a uterine or placental injury from the seat belt.24 In other words, 94.6 percent of the time when a pregnant woman was wearing her seat belt and her unborn baby died in an MVC, the seat belt did not injure her uterus or placenta. Moreover, NASS CDS, a nationally representative sample, contains few cases of fetal demise, illustrating the rarity of this event.

    22 The weight factor for the remaining 19 cases ranges from 8.35 to 594.

    23 Though all of these women did wear a seat belt, not all of them wore their seat belts correctly with the lap belt portion snug and low, across the hips.

    24 Injuries to the mother not caused by a seat belt tended to be from contact to other interior vehicle parts or from other sources such as the striking vehicle. In some cases injury causation could not be determined, and these cases were not included in calculating this value.

    (c) NHTSA Case Studies

    In order to be consistent with previous research in studying the deaths of unborn babies in frontal crashes, NHTSA aligned the NASS CDS data with that of the 2008 UMTRI study. This eliminated 18 of the 19 cases from the 2006-2011 NASS CDS dataset involving the death of an unborn child: Eight cases 25 because they involved pregnant women in their first trimester, four cases 26 because they involved a rollover or other multi-event crash scenario, and six cases 27 because their principal direction of force (PDOF) did not indicate a frontal collision.28 This left one case that was consistent with the UMTRI study's criteria. In addition, the agency included one case from the multi-event crash group in which the first event was a frontal impact and the second event was relatively minor. These cases are discussed below. This exercise demonstrated both the rarity of fetal demise in a vehicle crash as well as the complex nature of injury causation for a pregnant woman, further supporting the agency's position that pregnant women should wear a seat belt.

    25 NASS CDS cases 2006-47-56, 2006-75-212, 2007-41-1, 2007-48-128, 2007-72-119, 2008-11-21, 2008-75-5, and 2008-75-20.

    26 NASS CDS cases 2006-12-69, 2008-09-26, 2009-74-143, and 2011-13-152.

    27 NASS CDS cases 2006-73-35, 2006-73-106, 2007-76-25, 2008-75-84, 2010-48-127, and 2011-49-15.

    28 In addition to keeping an occupant inside of the vehicle during a rollover or side impact, a seat belt also holds an occupant into the seat during an event which would send an unrestrained occupant forward toward the steering wheel and windshield. It is during these forward motions that the seat belt becomes a potential source of injury to an unborn child, and these forward occupant motions are caused by frontal collisions where the vehicle's PDOF is pushing the car backwards. For this assessment a case was determined to be a frontal collision if the PDOF for the pregnant woman's vehicle was within ±45° of normal to the vehicle's frontal plane.

    Case 2006-78-71

    The one NASS CDS case that matched the 2008 UMTRI study criteria was case 2006-78-71. In this case, two vehicles were involved in a head-on collision. The 32 year old driver of the second vehicle, a 1993 Mazda 626 equipped with air bags, was 9 months pregnant and not wearing a seat belt. She was 150 cm tall and weighed 64 kg, with a Body Mass Index (BMI) 29 of 28.4. Crash reconstruction estimated the Delta-V to be 34 km/h longitudinally, and the NASS CDS investigator noted that there was no steering wheel rim/spoke deformation. The driver air bag did not deploy in this crash. The driver's most severe injury was an AIS 5 30 complex uterus laceration, judged to have certainly 31 been caused by direct contact with the steering wheel. She also had an AIS 2 minor mesentery laceration and an AIS 1 abrasion to her right hip, both also certain to have been caused by direct contact with the steering wheel. She was discharged from the hospital after 12 days, and medical records confirmed the death of the unborn baby.

    29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthy Weight—it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle!. September 13, 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/.

    30 An AIS 5 is the highest survivable AIS score, with an AIS 6 indicating that a particular injury was unsurvivable.

    31 NASS CDS investigators must assign a confidence level to all injury sources. The choices for these levels in descending order of investigator confidence are “Certain,” “Probable,” “Possible,” and “Unknown.”

    Case 2008-09-26

    This multi-event case from NASS CDS was also the focus of a NHTSA SCI investigation due to the concern that placental abruption was possibly caused by the seat belt. In this case, the vehicle containing the 40 year old pregnant woman, a 2006 Mercedes Benz E350, collided with a 2005 Ford Explorer Sport Trac attempting to make a left-hand turn. Crash reconstruction estimated the pregnant woman's vehicle to have a longitudinal Delta-V of 37 km/h. The Mercedes struck the Ford forward of its center of gravity, causing the Ford to quickly rotate and strike the Mercedes in a side-slap impact. The pregnant woman was seated in the first row passenger seat and was wearing her seat belt, though it is unknown whether the seat belt was worn correctly. She was 165 cm tall and weighed 91 kg at the time of the crash, corresponding to a BMI of 33.4, placing her in the obese category.

    The pregnant woman had 11 injuries with AIS scores ranging from 1 to 3. The most critical six were determined to have possibly resulted from contact with the driver and the center console during the side-slap, the most severe being an AIS 3 cerebrum subarachnoid hemorrhage. These injuries did not occur in the uterine area, and they were not directly related to the death of the unborn child. Injury number 7 of 11 was an AIS 3 lower placental abruption,32 possibly caused by the belt webbing/buckle. The only other injury to the pregnant woman's uterine area was an abdominal skin contusion with the precise location unknown, possibly caused by the belt webbing/buckle.

    32 The emergency personnel response time could not be determined for this case, though upon arrival at the scene, it was noted that the pregnant woman complained of head, chest, and abdominal pain with vaginal bleeding. She was transported by ground ambulance to a trauma center 10 miles away, where an ultrasound was immediately conducted, and a reduced fetal heartbeat was noted. The pregnant woman then had an emergency caesarian section, about 120 minutes post-crash, and a live 24.2 oz female baby was delivered in critical condition and transported to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). The baby died about 26 hours post-delivery due to premature birth as a consequence of the placental abruption.

    While the crash was assigned to NHTSA's SCI team, the SCI investigators were not able to conduct interviews or inspect the vehicle until approximately 6 months after the crash. Though it was certain that the pregnant woman had been wearing her seat belt, investigators were not able to conclusively determine whether or not she had been wearing it correctly.

    II. Current Petition

    Mr. Hofferberth petitions for two rulemakings. First, he requests that the agency initiate a rulemaking for Supplementary Automotive Restraint Systems for Pregnant Women. Second, the petitioner requests that the agency initiate rulemaking to require the warning of pregnant women that the seat belts could injure or kill their unborn children.33 The petition includes a proposed performance specification and validation test procedure for supplementary restraint systems for pregnant women, including labelling, fit, position retention, strength, and stiffness requirements, as well as a design for a test platform. The petition also includes an unpublished report, “Prevention of Fetal Injury in Motor Vehicle Crashes,” written by the petitioner.34 The petitioner makes a number of factual assertions and arguments regarding his belief that the lap belt presents a significant hazard for the unborn child of a pregnant woman.

    33 As explained above, and discussed in more detail below, this is contrary to NHTSA's considered view and the available evidence which establishes that pregnant women should wear their seat belts.

    34 In this report, the petitioner also states, as a “Recommendation,” that NHTSA should update its recommended usage of the lap and shoulder belt by pregnant women to reflect the petitioner's views, as well as research the petitioner cites as supporting his views. Although this request is not a petition for rulemaking, the agency's decision on the petition for a warning label rulemaking is responsive to this suggestion. The petitioner also recommends that NHTSA initiate rulemaking requiring pregnant motor vehicle occupants to use a supplemental restraint system. NHTSA does not have statutory authority for such a rulemaking.

    The petitioner, in both his letter and the attached report, states his beliefs that unborn babies are in danger of being crushed by the lap belt portion of a seat belt during a frontal collision and that seat belts are not appropriate for use by pregnant women. He cites research that he asserts shows that the lap belt portion of the restraint system has been implicated in causing specific trauma to the placenta and unborn child in relatively minor vehicular accidents. He also cites other research that he argues shows a high rate of fetal and placental injury and asserts that research shows that the fetus of a pregnant woman is approximately five times more likely to receive serious injury than a 0-1 year old child using a supplementary infant or child restraint riding in the same car.

    The petitioner also states that there are many supplementary restraint products on the market for pregnant women, which are not all equally effective and in some cases dangerous. The petitioner presents depictions and makes assertions regarding the effectiveness of several of these restraints, including a restraint which he patented.

    III. NHTSA's Consideration of the Petition A. General Principles

    Motor vehicle safety standards must be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Petitions for rulemaking are governed by 49 CFR part 552. Pursuant to Part 552, the agency conducts a technical review of the petition, which may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together with information already in possession of the agency. In deciding whether to grant or deny a petition, the agency considers this technical review as well as appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of agency resources and agency priorities.

    B. Analysis of the Petition

    The agency's technical review of the petition had several main parts. First, the agency reviewed the petition and the sources it cited before conducting a comprehensive literature review, which included material from the early 1970s through the present. Additionally, the agency, as described above, conducted an updated review of crash data available from the NHTSA field databases, including NASS CDS. The agency considered all of the information contained in the petition, and for the reasons stated below, the agency is denying the petition.

    The first part of Mr. Hofferberth's petition asks that NHTSA regulate the performance of supplementary automotive restraint systems for pregnant women. In assessing this aspect of the petition, NHTSA first attempted to quantify the safety problem, i.e., whether there is an unreasonable risk of death or injury to pregnant women or to unborn children in a belted condition when exposed to a crash that would lead NHTSA to propose a performance requirement for supplemental restraint devices. The agency could not establish this through the technical review of the submitted petition materials.

    For example, the petitioner asserts that unborn babies are in danger of being crushed by the lap belt portion of a seat belt during a frontal collision and that seat belts are not appropriate for use by pregnant women. However, the comprehensive UMTRI study showed that a pregnant woman's proper use of a seat belt has a positive effect on fetal outcome in a crash: “an 84 percent reduction in risk of adverse fetal outcome is obtained by properly wearing a seatbelt. On the basis of this relative risk and an overall belt use rate of 80 percent, unbelted pregnant occupants sustain an estimated 62 percent of all fetal losses in motor vehicle crashes.” In addition, the amniotic fluid is capable of resisting the forces from the lap portion of a seat belt, and can aid in preventing the belt from penetrating through the unborn baby's body.

    Similarly, the petitioner asserts that the lap belt portion of the restraint system causes fetal trauma in relatively minor crashes. However, as discussed above, a study 35 found that “[p]roper restraint use, with and without air bag deployment, generally leads to acceptable fetal outcomes in lower severity crashes,” and went on to conclude that “compared to properly restrained pregnant occupants, improperly restrained occupants have a higher risk of adverse fetal outcome in lower severity crashes.”

    35 Klinich, K. D., Schneidier, L. W., Moore, J. L., Pearlman, M. D., entitled “Investigations of Crashes Involving Pregnant Occupants,” dated 1999. This work was supported by General Motors Corporation, pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Additionally, the agency performed an updated review of crash data available from the NHTSA field databases, including NASS CDS. Although the petitioner asserts that unborn babies are in danger of being crushed by the lap belt portion of a seat belt and cites research that he argues shows a high rate of fetal and placental injury, the agency found that a low percentage (2.22 percent) of pregnant women lost their child after being exposed to a crash. The detailed review of all fetal demise cases indicated that all but one fell into the exclusion criteria used by UMTRI in their field data analysis. This one case was of an unbelted woman who sustained an AIS 5 complex uterus laceration caused by direct contact with the steering wheel.36 Additional information regarding the analysis of NHTSA data for placental injury to belted pregnant women and the correlation of fetal mortality with higher crash severity, illustrating the beneficial effects of seat belt use by pregnant women, is provided above in section I.C.2. Accordingly, at this time the analysis of the field data does not indicate a safety need to propose a standard for supplemental restraints for pregnant women.

    36 Case 2008-09-26 did involve a pregnant woman who experienced a placental abruption, but investigators were not able to determine whether the occupant had been wearing the belt correctly.

    With regard to establishing performance requirements for supplemental restraints, NHTSA does not have sufficient information at this time to state whether there is any additional net safety benefit/disbenefit to be derived from their use or whether one type of device is superior to another. The agency notes that these devices are considered motor vehicle equipment, and manufacturers of these devices are subject to the recall and remedy requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30118-30120). To date NHTSA has not seen evidence of these devices causing harm to pregnant women. Artemis, the agency's central repository of data on motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment defects, does not currently contain entries related to complaints or reported injuries resulting from the use of such devices.

    Given the observed correlation between maternal and fetal outcome, the agency believes that improvements in crashworthiness, particularly advancements in occupant restraint systems, will serve to protect pregnant women and their unborn children. NHTSA continues to work towards these improvements through research efforts in the areas of advanced restraints and improvements to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The petitioner did not provide any data or testing to support the benefits of supplemental devices or the merits of the proposed test procedure to discriminate between good and bad performance to serve as a basis for such a performance requirement.

    The second request in the petition asks that the agency warn pregnant women of the risk from the seat belt through a prominent warning label required in every vehicle. As noted in the Federal Register notice denying Mr. Hofferberth's 2005 petition to initiate rulemaking on a similar advisory placard (71 FR 14675), the agency disagrees with the claim that seat belts are hazardous to unborn babies. The agency position regarding the benefits of seat belts for both the mother and the unborn child has not changed since the publication of the 2006 denial notice and is supported, as discussed above, by the agency's review of the technical literature and field data.

    As noted above, the agency conducted an extensive literature review and reviewed all sources cited by the petitioner. It is the agency's view that this literature shows that the most effective way to protect the unborn baby is to protect the pregnant woman. Technical studies were discussed in the preceding sections of this notice of decision. Additionally, the agency is not aware of any serious injuries to pregnant women caused by seat belts in non-impact situations, and the aforementioned 2008 Klinich paper showed that “[c]laims that restraints cause adverse fetal outcomes cannot be substantiated without reliable information on crash severity.”

    The agency's field data analysis shows, among other things, that seat belt-caused uterine or placental injuries during crashes are extremely rare (0.1 percent of cases) and that seat belt use dramatically reduces the risk of dying in a crash for both pregnant women and unborn children. Additional information regarding the agency's field data analysis is provided above in section I.C.2.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the petition is denied.

    IV. Future Plans

    A study showed that despite NHTSA recommending specific seat belt best practices for pregnant women, approximately one quarter of the pregnant women being studied did not follow the recommendation, and nearly two thirds of them had not received the information.37 When asked about the effects of seat belts on their unborn babies during a motor vehicle collision, 34.0 percent of these same pregnant women were not sure, and another 10.7 percent believed that the seat belts would actually cause harm.38 A study supported by the Federal Highway Administration reported that “[e]ducational level is a factor predicting seatbelt use. Among women with less than a high school education, 41 percent did not employ seatbelt restraints as compared with 18.8 percent who were high school graduates . . . [P]regnant women of lower educational level and socioeconomic status are at particular risk for failing to correctly employ seatbelts during pregnancy.” 39

    37 McGwin Jr., G., Willey, P., Ware, A., et al., entitled, “A Focused Educational Intervention Can Promote the Proper Application of Seat Belts during Pregnancy,” published May 2004 in The Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care.

    38 McGwin, Jr., G., Russell, S., Rux, R., et al., entitled, “Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices Concerning Seat Belt Use During Pregnancy,” published March 2004 in The Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care.

    39 Taylor, A. J., McGwin Jr., G., Sharp, C. E., et al., entitled, “Seatbelt Use During Pregnancy: A Comparison of Women in Two Prenatal Care Settings,” published June 2005 in the Maternal and Child Health Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2.

    Another recent study supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, of the National Institutes of Health, reported that even though most pregnant women wear seat belts, those who do are not necessarily wearing them correctly. Additionally, this report states that despite ACOG's recommendation that all pregnant women receive prenatal seat belt counseling, not all women receive it. It also suggests that increased educational efforts emphasizing not only the use of seat belts but also their proper placement would be appropriate.40

    40 Vladutiu, C. J., Weiss, H. B., entitled, “Motor Vehicle Safety During Pregnancy,” published October 2011 in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 3.

    The agency believes that it is very important to convey the importance of proper seat belt use to pregnant women. As indicated by the aforementioned studies, a large percentage of pregnant women are not following the current recommendations; therefore, NHTSA has decided to increase outreach efforts in this area. NHTSA currently posts the agency's official brochure, If You are Pregnant: Seat Belt Recommendations for Drivers and Passengers, on all official Web sites. It is a popular download from TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov,41 the Web site for all NHTSA partners to find official publicity material. To increase the dissemination of this brochure, the agency plans to add it to the social networking outreach rotation of messages distributed through outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, and its content has been more prominently featured on Parents Central.42 Proper seat belt use and seat positioning for pregnant women will also be the focus of an upcoming Safety in Numbers feature on the NHTSA Web site.

    41http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/CAMPAIGNS/Seat+Belts/Buckle+Up+America/Thanksgiving+Weekend/Pregnant+Women's+Guide+To+Buckling+Up.

    42http://www.safercar.gov/parents/SeatBelts/Pregnancy-Seat-Belt-Safety.htm.

    V. Conclusion

    After carefully considering the safety need for the requested rulemaking and supporting information and in accordance with 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA hereby denies Mr. James E. Hofferberth's April 1, 2013 petition to regulate the performance of supplementary automotive restraint systems that are marketed specifically for pregnant women and to require prominent warning labels in all vehicles with the intent of informing pregnant women that “seat belts could injure or kill their unborn child.” Research and real-world data show the substantial benefits of seat belt use for both pregnant women and unborn children, and the agency recommends that all pregnant women wear properly adjusted seat belts.

    The agency takes the safety of pregnant women very seriously and has already begun to increase awareness and educational efforts related to the proper use of seat belts while continuing to monitor the data trends surrounding this issue.

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this concludes the agency's review of the petition.

    Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on: March 31, 2016 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07827 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    81 66 Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Economic Research Service Notice of Intent To Request New Information Collection AGENCY:

    Economic Research 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 Economic Research Service's intention to request approval for a new information collection for a Pilot Survey on Food Acquisition among American Households.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by June 6, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to John Kirlin, Food Assistance Branch, Food Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop 1800, Washington, DC 20250-0002. Comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Kirlin, [email protected] Tel. 202-694-5398.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: National Food Study Pilot.

    OMB Number: To be assigned by OMB.

    Expiration Date: Three years from the date of approval.

    Type of Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: The National Food Study (NFS) pilot will be conducted over a four-month period from October 2016 through January 2017. The survey will collect nationally representative data from 500 households, including 150 households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program). Each eligible household will be asked to record their food acquisitions for each household member over a 7-day period.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture collected similar data in 2012-2013 with the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS, OMB Control Number 0536-0068). Participating household members in that survey used food booklets and a hand-held scanner to record information about all food acquisitions during a 7-day period. There is evidence in the FoodAPS data of some drop-off in the frequency of reported food acquisitions toward the end of the 7-day reporting periods. FoodAPS was a nationally representative survey with over-sampling of households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and non-SNAP households with low incomes.

    The main objective of the NFS pilot is to test an alternative method of collecting data on the foods acquired by American households that leads to more complete and accurate information about patterns of food acquisitions. Other objectives are to explore the feasibility of expanding the population of interest to include households receiving benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and to collect more complete and accurate information on income. Data will be collected from households in nine states.

    The sample will be selected from an address-based sampling frame. A total of 2,154 households from 12 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) in nine states will receive a letter requesting their participation in the study. The pilot will also test the effectiveness of using WIC and SNAP administrative data at identifying SNAP and WIC participants.

    The NFS pilot data collection begins by screening households via an in-person interview to determine eligibility and identifying a primary respondent (person who does the majority of the grocery shopping and cooking for the household) within eligible households. Next, an in-person initial interview is completed with the primary respondent. Then, all members of the household age 11 years and older are asked to access a web-based system daily to report food or drinks obtained during their assigned data collection week. Upon completion of the week-long data collection, a final in-person interview is completed with the primary respondent. To determine measurement error, immediately after the final interview, a follow-up re-interview will be conducted with two household members about their last two reporting days and to probe for missing information.

    Food obtained by household members includes food purchased or obtained for free and brought into the home as well as food purchased or acquired for free outside of the home. Information to be collected about each food event will include place name and type, location, date, total cost, and method(s) of payment. Food item information to be collected will include an item descriptor, quantity acquired, unit price, and use of coupons or store loyalty cards that reduce actual cost. Participants also will be asked to upload photos of receipts. Participants will receive reminder email messages or text messages throughout the week if they do not report acquisitions for a day. If needed, households will be provided electronic equipment for the duration of their data collection period to assist them in accessing the web instrument.

    Recruited households will receive $50 upon completion of the initial interview. Households will accumulate a $3 per day credit for each eligible household member whose food purchase behavior (including affirmation of no acquisitions) is recorded in the web system for that day, and a bonus of $50 for households whose members record food acquisitions for all 7 days and that complete the final interview. Finally, $5 will be provided to the household if members complete the income questions online.

    All data collection instruments will ask only the most pertinent information, and the web-based system will be as respondent- and user-friendly as possible. Responses are voluntary and confidential. The instruments and procedures will be pretested prior to the finalization.

    Responses from the National Food Study pilot will be combined for statistical purposes and reported only in aggregate or statistical form. A final report summarizing the findings will include an evaluation on the accuracy of administrative data used to select WIC and SNAP households as well as an evaluation of the feasibility of the web-based data collection system. Because this is a pilot test of a new data collection mode, there are no plans to make the collected data available to the public. The data will be analyzed and used as the Agency makes plans for a full-scale data collection at a future date.

    Authority:

    These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). ERS will comply with OMB Implementation Guidance, “Implementation Guidance for Title V of the E-Government Act, Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA)”, 72 FR 33362, June 15, 2007. Respondent information will be protected under the CIPSEA and the 7 U.S.C. 2276.

    Affected Public: Respondent groups identified include: SNAP households, WIC households, and non-SNAP and non-WIC households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The number of respondents is 2,154 households, of which 580 are expected to include SNAP participants. This includes: (i) Advance Letter: 2,154 households; (ii) Screener: 1,551 households (assumes a10% vacancy rate for SNAP households, a 15% vacancy rate for non-SNAP households, and a 72% response rate); (iii) Initial Interview: 593 responding households and 958 non-responding or non-eligible households composed of 540 households screened out due to unfamiliarity with smartphone or internet technology (assumes 45% of SNAP and 40% of non-SNAP households), 248 households screened out due to high income (assumes 21% of remaining non-SNAP households), and 170 households declining to participate in the study (assumes completion rates of 85% for eligible SNAP households and 75% for eligible non-SNAP households); (iv) Final Interview: 534 households (assumes a 90% response rate); and (v) Respondent Feedback Form: 507 households (assumes a 95% response rate). Data collection at the individual level contributes to household-level burden estimates, and the number of individual respondents is the number of households completing the Initial Interview (593) times estimated average household size (2.4), or 1424 individuals. The number of individual respondents is: (vi) Training: 1424 respondents (assumes an average of 2.4 individuals per household); It is assumed that 10% of households decide not to continue with the survey after the training, leaving 534 households and 1282 individuals. (vii) Income Worksheet: 999 respondents (assumes an 85% response rate for SNAP households and a 75% response rate for non-SNAP households); (viii) Food Reporting System and Meals and Snack Form: 1026 respondents (assumes an 80% response rate); and (ix) Re-interview: 961 respondents (assumes a 90% response rate, 2 persons per household).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: All respondents 11 years and older who access the web once daily, will respond seven times. Respondents who complete the screener, initial, and final interviews will respond an additional three times. Respondents completing the re-interview will provide one additional response.

    Estimated Time per Response: Reading the advance letter and completing the screener, initial, final, and feedback instruments will average 1.33 hours per household (or primary respondent). Individuals (including the primary respondent) who access the web to receive training, provide information on food acquisitions, income, and meals/snacks, and complete the re-interview will average 1.97 hours per respondent.

    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 6,394 hours. See table for details.

    Reporting Burden Instrument Sample size Freq Responses Resp. count Freq × count Min./Resp. Burden hours Non-response/Not eligible Non-resp. count Freq × count Min./Resp. Burden hours Total burden hours Advance letters 2154 1 2154 2154 3 108 0 0 0 0 108 Household-level Data Collection: Household Screener 2154 1 1551 1551 12 310 603 603 5 50 360 Initial Household Interview 1551 1 593 593 30 297 958 958 1.8 29 326 Final Household Interview 593 1 534 534 30 267 59 59 3 3 270 Respondent Feedback Form 534 1 507 507 5 42 27 27 3 1 44 Total Responding Burden—HH 2154 2154 1024 83 1107 Individual-level Data Collection: Training 1424 1 1424 1424 45 1068 0 0 0 0 1068 Income Worksheet—Individual 1282 1 999 999 15 250 283 283 3 14 264 Food Reporting System 1282 7 1026 7182 25 2993 256 1792 3 90 3083 Meals and Snacks Form 1282 7 1026 7182 3 359 256 1792 1 30 389 Re-interview 1068 1 961 961 30 481 107 107 1 2 482 Total Responding Burden—Ind. 1424 1424 5148 301 136 5286 Total Responding Burden 2154 2154 6175 219 6394 Estimates of burden hours have been rounded.

    Comments: 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. Comments may be sent to John Kirlin, Resource and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop 1800, Washington, DC 20250-1800. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of John Kirlin at 202-694-5661—or via email to [email protected] All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

    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.

    Dated: March 24, 2016. Mary Bohman, Administrator, Economic Research Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07850 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection; Comment Request—Report of Disqualification From Participation—Institutions and Responsible Principals/Individuals (FNS-843) and Report of Disqualification From Participation—Individually Disqualified Responsible Principal/Individual or Day Care Home Provider (FNS-844) AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and public agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. This collection is an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection for maintaining the National Disqualified List of institutions, day care home providers, and individuals that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) participation. These federal requirements affect eligibility under the CACFP. The State Agencies are required to enter data as institutions and individuals become disqualified from participating in the CACFP. The collection is the result of a FNS web-based system constructed to update and maintain the list of disqualified institutions and individuals so that no State agency or sponsoring organization may approve any entity on the National Disqualified List to ensure the integrity of the Program.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Sarah Smith-Holmes, Director, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 630, Alexandria, Virginia 22302. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comment(s) will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 640, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, and will become a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Smith-Holmes (703) 305-2063.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: CACFP National Disqualified List—Forms FNS-843, FNS-844.

    Form Number: FNS-843 and FNS-844.

    OMB Number: 0584-0584.

    Expiration Date: August 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension, without change, of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Service administers the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1771, et seq.). Section 243(c) of Public Law 106-224, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, amended section 17(d)(5) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766(d)(5)(E)(i) and (ii)) by requiring the Department of Agriculture to maintain a list of institutions, day care home providers, and individuals that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from Child and Adult Care Food Program participation. The law also requires the Department to make the list available to State agencies for their use in reviewing applications to participate in the program and to sponsoring organizations to ensure that they do not employ as principals any persons who are disqualified from the program. Forms FNS-843 and FNS-844 are used to collect and maintain this data. This statutory mandate has been incorporated into § 226.6(c)(7) of the Program regulations. In addition, the recordkeeping burden associated with maintaining documentation related to institutions and providers terminated for cause at the State agency level is captured under the Information Collection for 7 CFR part 226, Child and Adult Care Food Program OMB Control Number 0584-0055, expiration date September 30, 2016. Therefore, there is no recordkeeping burden associated with this collection.

    Affected Public: State Agencies.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 56.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 28.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,568.

    Estimate Time Per Response: .50.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 784.

    Affected public Instrument Estimated number of
  • respondents
  • Number of responses per respondent Total annual responses Estimated total hours per
  • response
  • Estimated total burden
    Reporting State Agencies FNS 843 56 6 336 .50 168 State Agencies FNS 844 56 22 1,232 .50 616 Total Estimated Reporting Burden 56 1,568 784
    Dated: March 31, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07913 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-849] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From Taiwan: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 6, 2016.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers from Taiwan for the period of review (“POR”), December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Hawkins, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202.482.6491.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 9, 2016, based on a timely request for review by Petitioners,1 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel wire garment hangers for six companies, covering the period December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015.2 On March 22, 2016, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of these companies.3

    1 M&B Metal Products Company, Inc., Innovative Fabrication LLC/Indy Hanger and US Hanger Company, LLC (collectively “Petitioners”).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 6832 (February 9, 2016) (“Initiation”).

    3See letter from Petitioners, “Re: Third Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Review Request,” dated March 22, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Petitioners withdrew their request within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review of steel wire garment hangers from Taiwan for the POR.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notifications

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

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07903 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-037] Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: April 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-7906.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On February 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) initiated the countervailing duty investigation of certain biaxial integral geogrid products from the People's Republic of China. See Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 81 FR 7745 (February 16, 2016). Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than April 13, 2016.

    Postponement of Due Date for Preliminary Determination

    Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, if the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, and that the case is extraordinarily complicated such that additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination, section 703(c)(l)(B) of the Act allows the Department to postpone making the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which the administering authority initiated the investigation. We have concluded that the parties concerned are cooperating and that the case is extraordinarily complicated, such that we will need more time to make the preliminary determination. Specifically, the Department finds that the instant case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of the number and complexity of the alleged countervailable subsidy practices, and the need to determine the extent to which particular alleged countervailable subsidies are used by individual manufacturers, producers and exporters.

    Additionally, the Department notes that we issued questionnaires to the respondents in this case on March 1, 2016. The due date for these questionnaires is April 7, 2016, which is only six days before the unextended preliminary determination date. For these reasons we are fully extending the due date until 130 days after the Department's initiation for the preliminary determination. Therefore, the deadline for the completion of the preliminary determination is now June 17, 2016.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).1

    1 We acknowledge that the Department inadvertently did not notify the parties to this investigation of this postponement within the timeframe provided in section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07901 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The primary purpose of this meeting is to update the Committee on the progress of the implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Joplin tornado investigation report's recommendations and receive NIST's response to the Committee's 2015 annual report and recommendations. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/.

    DATES:

    The NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Building 101 Room C121, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benjamin Davis, Management and Program Analyst, Community Resilience Program, Engineering Laboratory, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8615, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604. Mr. Davis' email address is [email protected] and his phone number is (301) 975-6071.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established pursuant to Section 11 of the NCST Act (Pub. L. 107-231), codified at 15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq. The Committee is currently composed of six members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting the National Construction Safety Teams. The Committee advises the Director of NIST on carrying out the NCST Act; reviews the procedures developed for conducting investigations; and reviews the reports issued documenting investigations. Background information on the NCST Act and information on the NCST Advisory Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NCST Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, May 3, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public. The meeting will be held in Building 101 Room C121, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. The primary purpose of this meeting is to update the Committee on the progress of the implementation of the NIST Joplin tornado investigation report's recommendations, available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/upload/Recommendations_Joplin.pdf, and receive NIST's response to the Committee's 2015 annual report recommendations. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ncst/.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to items on the Committee's agenda for this meeting are invited to request a place on the agenda. On May 3, 2016, approximately fifteen minutes will be reserved near the conclusion of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. All those wishing to speak must submit their request by email to the attention of Mr. Benjamin Davis, [email protected], by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, April 26, 2016. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to the NCST, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8604, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8604, or electronically by email to [email protected]:.

    All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Tuesday, April 26, 2016, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, email address, and phone number to Melissa Banner. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Ms. Banner. Ms. Banner's email address is [email protected], and her phone number is (301) 975-8912. For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license. For detailed information please contact Ms. Banner or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Phillip A. Singerman, Associate Director for Innovations and Industry Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07902 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE535 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; new five-year affirmative findings for Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator (Assistant Administrator) has issued new five-year affirmative findings for the Governments of Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Spain (Hereafter known as “The Nations”) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). These new five-year affirmative findings will allow yellowfin tuna and yellowfin tuna products harvested in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) by The Nations' flagged purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under The Nations' jurisdiction to be imported into the United States. The new five-year affirmative findings were based on reviews of documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and obtained from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).

    DATES:

    These new five-year affirmative findings are effective for the five-year period of April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2020.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Justin Greenman, West Coast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802. Phone: 562-980-3264. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows for importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine vessels in the ETP under certain conditions. If requested by the harvesting nation, the Assistant Administrator will determine whether to make an affirmative finding based upon documentary evidence provided by the government of the harvesting nation, the IATTC, or the Department of State.

    The affirmative finding process requires that the harvesting nation is meeting its obligations under the IDCP and obligations of membership in the IATTC. Every five years, the government of the harvesting nation must request a new affirmative finding and submit the required documentary evidence directly to the Assistant Administrator. On an annual basis, NMFS reviews the affirmative finding and determines whether the harvesting nation continues to meet the requirements. A nation may provide information related to compliance with IDCP and IATTC measures directly to NMFS on an annual basis or may authorize the IATTC to release the information to NMFS to annually renew an affirmative finding determination without an application from the harvesting nation.

    An affirmative finding will be terminated, in consultation with the Secretary of State, if the Assistant Administrator determines that the requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no longer being met or that a nation is consistently failing to take enforcement actions on violations, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the IDCP.

    As a part of the affirmative finding process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the Assistant Administrator considered documentary evidence submitted by the Governments of The Nations and obtained from the IATTC and has determined that The Nations have met the MMPA's requirements to receive new five-year affirmative findings.

    After consultation with the Department of State, the Assistant Administrator issued new five-year affirmative findings to The Nations, allowing the continued importation into the United States of yellowfin tuna and products derived from yellowfin tuna harvested in the ETP by The Nations' flagged purse seine vessels or purse seine vessels operating under The Nations jurisdiction for the five-year period of April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2020.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07823 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 160331306-6306-01] RIN 0660-XC024 The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice, request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S. innovation, prosperity, education, and civic and cultural life, the Department of Commerce has made it a top priority to encourage growth of the digital economy and ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation. Thus, as part of the Department's Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is initiating an inquiry regarding the Internet of Things (IoT) to review the current technological and policy landscape. Through this Notice, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders—including the private industry, researchers, academia, and civil society—on the potential benefits and challenges of these technologies and what role, if any, the U.S. Government should play in this area. After analyzing the comments, the Department intends to issue a “green paper” that identifies key issues impacting deployment of these technologies, highlights potential benefits and challenges, and identifies possible roles for the federal government in fostering the advancement of IoT technologies in partnership with the private sector.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: IOT RFC 2016, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal identifying information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will accept anonymous comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Travis Hall, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3522; email [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: As part of the Department of Commerce's Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is requesting comment on the benefits, challenges, and potential roles for the government in fostering the advancement of the Internet of Things (IoT).

    Description of IoT and its Impact on the Economy: IoT is the broad umbrella term that seeks to describe the connection of physical objects, infrastructure, and environments to various identifiers, sensors, networks, and/or computing capability.1 In practice, it also encompasses the applications and analytic capabilities driven by getting data from, and sending instructions to, newly-digitized devices and components.

    1 The term was initially coined by Kevin Ashton in 1999 in a presentation at Proctor and Gamble in reference to radio-frequency identification tags (RFIDs). See Kevin Ashton, That `Internet of Things' Thing, RFID Journal (June 22, 2009), http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4986.

    Although a number of architectures describing different aspects or various applications of the IoT are being developed, there is no broad consensus on exactly how the concept should be defined or scoped. Consensus has emerged, however, that the number of connected devices is expected to grow exponentially, and the economic impact of those devices will increase dramatically.2 While some types of devices will fall into readily identifiable commercial or public sectors in their own right—for example, implantable health devices—most will serve the function of enabling existing industries to better track, manage, and automate their core functions. The potential health, safety, environmental, commercial, and other benefits of IoT are enormous, from reducing the risk of automobile-related injuries and fatalities to enabling micro-cell weather forecasting. IoT has the potential to catalyze new user applications and give rise to new industries. For example, IoT is the foundation for “Smart Cities” efforts, which use pervasive connectivity and data-driven technologies to better manage resources, meet local challenges, and improve quality of life.

    2 In 2003, there were only around 500 million connected devices, but by 2015 there were around 25 billion connected devices. Devices now outnumber people by 3.5 to 1. (Intel, A Guide to the Internet of Things Infographic, available at http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/internet-of-things/infographics/guide-to-iot.html). It is expected by 2020 that there will be up to 200 billion connected devices and these devices will outnumber people by 26 to 1. The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the cross-sector impact of IoT technologies will be between $3.9 trillion and $11 trillion by 2025. See James Manyika et al, Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things, McKinsey & Co. (June 2015), http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/the_internet_of_things_the_value_of_digitizing_the_physical_world.

    However, the IoT also presents challenges,3 which in turn have begun to generate initial thinking and policy responses both inside and outside of government. A number of Federal agencies—for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—have already begun grappling with potential health, safety, and security issues arising from the connection of cars and medical devices to the Internet.4 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has identified privacy and cybersecurity aspects of IoT, and proposed some possible best practices.5 Pursuant to the White House Smart Cities Initiative, the U.S. Government is providing $35 million in new grants and nearly $70 million in new spending on Smart Cities across several departments.6 Additional activities at the federal level seek to take advantage of the potential opportunities as well as address any possible issues raised by the deployment of IoT in relation to agency missions. IoT has also garnered interest by other national governments, standards organizations, and intergovernmental organizations that are interested in understanding how to engage in the IoT ecosystem to encourage economic growth and innovation.7 Unfortunately, country specific strategies threaten the possibility of a global patchwork of approaches to IoT, which would increase costs and delay the launch of new products and services, dampening investment. The U.S. government will need to work with stakeholders to develop industry-driven solutions; however, thus far no U.S. government agency is taking a holistic, ecosystem-wide view that identifies opportunities and assesses risks across the digital economy.

    3 See, for example, the concerns laid out by the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) in NSTAC Report to the President on the Internet of Things (Nov. 2014), pg. 21-22. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/NSTAC%20Report%20to%20the%20President%20on%20the%20Internet%20of%20Things%20Nov%202014%20%28updat%20%20%20.pdf.

    4See U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Radio Frequency Wireless Technology in Medical Devices: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Aug. 14, 2013), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm077272.pdf; see also NHTSA, Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications (last accessed March 9, 2016), http://www.safercar.gov/v2v/index.html.

    5 Federal Trade Comm'n, FTC Report on Internet of Things Urges Companies to Adopt Best Practices to Address Consumer Privacy and Security Risks, FTC (Jan. 27, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/ftc-report-internet-things-urges-companies-adopt-best-practices.

    6 The White House, FACT SHEET: Administration Announces New “Smart Cities” Initiative to Help communities Tackle Local Challenges and Improve City Services, The White House Office of the Press Secretary (Sept. 14, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/14/fact-sheet-administration-announces-new-smart-cities-initiative-help.

    7 For example, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and ISO and IEC's Joint Technical Committee 1 (ISO/IEC JTC1) and the International Telecommunications Union's Standardization Sector (ITU-T) have initiated discussion and work related to IoT.

    The Department's Digital Economy Initiatives: More than six years ago, the Department created the Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) to identify and address leading public policy and operational challenges in the Internet ecosystem. The IPTF collaborates across bureaus at the Department, seeks public comment, and has produced policy papers on a variety of important topics.

    In recognition of the broad impact that the Internet and digitization are having across the economy, in 2015 the Department created the Digital Economy Leadership Team (DELT). Comprised of senior officials from across the Department, the DELT provides high-level guidance and coordination, leveraging the substantial expertise within the agency to promote initiatives that have a positive impact on the digital economy and society. The DELT currently focuses on the four pillars of the Department's 2015-16 Digital Economy Agenda: promoting a free and open Internet worldwide; promoting trust and confidence online; ensuring Internet access for workers, families, and companies; and promoting innovation in the digital economy. Working closely together, the DELT and IPTF ensure that the Department is helping businesses and consumers realize the potential of the digital economy to advance growth and opportunity.

    Given the cross-cutting nature of the IoT landscape, the Department of Commerce—through the DELT and IPTF—is able to provide important perspective and expertise on IoT. The mission of the Department is to help establish conditions that will enable the private sector to grow the economy, innovate, and create jobs. The Department also has statutory authority, expertise, and ongoing work streams in numerous areas that are critical to the development of IoT, including: cybersecurity, privacy, cross-border data flows, spectrum, international trade, advanced manufacturing, protection of intellectual property, standards policy, Internet governance, big data, entrepreneurship, and worker skills. For example:

    • The Department has long standing technological and policy expertise and experience that it is applying to IoT. The Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has coordinated the development of a draft reference architecture for Cyber-Physical Systems and is conducting a Global City Teams Challenge to foster the development of Smart Cities and promote interoperability. NTIA's spectrum planning and management activities contemplate the growth of IoT and its Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS) has begun testing the possible effects of IoT on spectrum usage. Both NIST and NTIA have been actively engaged with international standards bodies and international organizations on aspects of IoT and other related areas (e.g., cybersecurity), and have been further engaged with other Federal agencies.

    • The Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants to communities around the country to build up their technology-focused innovation ecosystems in order to grow their local economies and create jobs.

    • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to improve its patent quality, especially in new technological domains, including IoT. USPTO also plays a key role in the alignment of intellectual property policies around the world, so that U.S. inventors of IoT technology can have access to the protections they need to continue innovating and sell their products and services everywhere.

    • The International Trade Administration (ITA) is an active promoter of IoT and Smart Cities on the international stage, including participation in the CS Europe Smart Cities Initiative and working with the other Federal agencies to consider innovative financing mechanisms for Smart City projects. ITA hosts roundtables on an ad hoc basis with the private sector and federal partners to discuss Smart Cities and infrastructure financing. In addition, ITA's Office of Textiles and Apparel is holding a Smart Fabrics Summit (http://smartfabricssummit.com/) on April 11, 2016.

    The Department, through this RFC and subsequent green paper, will capitalize on the Department's experience and holistic economic perspective to craft an approach to IoT and its potential impacts that will best foster IoT innovation and growth. Where relevant, comments received may also inform the work of other federal initiatives, such as the recently created Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.

    Request for Comment:

    Instructions for Commenters: The Department invites comment on the full range of issues that may be presented by this inquiry, including issues that are not specifically raised in the following questions. Commenters are encouraged to address any or all of the following questions. To the extent commenters choose to respond to the specific questions asked, responses should generally follow the below structure and note the number corresponding to the question. Comments that contain references to studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials with the submitted comments.

    For any response, commenters may wish to consider describing specific goals or actions that the Department of Commerce, or the U.S. Government in general, might take (on its own or in conjunction with the private sector) to achieve those goals; the benefits and costs associated with the action; whether the proposal is agency-specific or interagency; the rationale and evidence to support it; and the roles of other stakeholders.

    General:

    1. Are the challenges and opportunities arising from IoT similar to those that governments and societies have previously addressed with existing technologies, or are they different, and if so, how?

    a. What are the novel technological challenges presented by IoT relative to existing technological infrastructure and devices, if any? What makes them novel?

    b. What are the novel policy challenges presented by IoT relative to existing technology policy issues, if any? Why are they novel? Can existing policies and policy approaches address these new challenges, and if not, why?

    c. What are the most significant new opportunities and/or benefits created by IoT, be they technological, policy, or economic?

    2. The term “Internet of Things” and related concepts have been defined by multiple organizations, including parts of the U.S. Government such as NIST and the FTC, through policy briefs and reference architectures.8 What definition(s) should we use in examining the IoT landscape and why? What is at stake in the differences between definitions of IoT? What are the strengths and limitations, if any, associated with these definitions?

    8 Federal Trade Comm'n, Internet of Things: Privacy and Security in a Connected World, FTC (Jan. 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf; Abdella Battou, CPS PWG: Reference Architecture, National Institute of Standards and Technology (accessed March 9, 2016), http://www.nist.gov/cps/cpspwg_refarch.cfm.

    3. With respect to current or planned laws, regulations, and/or policies that apply to IoT:

    a. Are there examples that, in your view, foster IoT development and deployment, while also providing an appropriate level of protection to workers, consumers, patients, and/or other users of IoT technologies?

    b. Are there examples that, in your view, unnecessarily inhibit IoT development and deployment?

    4. Are there ways to divide or classify the IoT landscape to improve the precision with which public policy issues are discussed? If so, what are they, and what are the benefits or limitations of using such classifications? Examples of possible classifications of IoT could include: Consumer vs. industrial; public vs. private; device-to-device vs. human interfacing.

    5. Please provide information on any current (or concluded) initiatives or research of significance that have examined or made important strides in understanding the IoT policy landscape. Why do you find this work to be significant?

    Technology: Technology is at the heart of IoT and its applications. IoT development is being driven by a very diverse set of stakeholders whose expertise in science, research, development, deployment, measurements and standards are enabling rapid advances in technologies for IoT. It is important to understand what technological hurdles still exist, or may arise, in the development and deployment of IoT, and if the government can play a role in mitigating these hurdles.

    6. What technological issues may hinder the development of IoT, if any?

    a. Examples of possible technical issues could include:

    i. Interoperability ii. Insufficient/contradictory/proprietary standards/platforms iii. Spectrum availability and potential congestion/interference iv. Availability of network infrastructure v. Other

    b. What can the government do, if anything, to help mitigate these technical issues? Where may government/private sector partnership be beneficial?

    7. NIST and NTIA are actively working to develop and understand many of the technical underpinnings for IoT technologies and their applications. What factors should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government consider when prioritizing their technical activities with regard to IoT and its applications, and why?

    Infrastructure: Infrastructure investment, innovation, and resiliency (such as across the information technology, communications, and energy sectors) will provide a foundation for the rapid growth of IoT services.

    8. How will IoT place demands on existing infrastructure architectures, business models, or stability?

    9. Are there ways to prepare for or minimize IoT disruptions in these infrastructures? How are these infrastructures planning and evolving to meet the demands of IoT?

    10. What role might the government play in bolstering and protecting the availability and resiliency of these infrastructures to support IoT?

    Economy: IoT has already begun to alter the U.S. economy by enabling the development of innovative consumer products and entirely new economic sectors, enhancing a variety of existing products and services, and facilitating new manufacturing and delivery systems. In light of this, how should we think of and assess IoT and its effects? The questions below are an effort to understand both the potential economic implications of IoT for the U.S. economy, as well as how to quantify and analyze the economic impact of IoT in the future. The Department is interested in both the likely implications of IoT on the U.S. economy and society, as well as the tools that could be used to quantify that impact.

    11. Should the government quantify and measure the IoT sector? If so, how?

    a. As devices manufactured or sold (in value or volume)?

    b. As industrial/manufacturing components?

    c. As part of the digital economy?

    i. In providing services

    ii. In the commerce of digital goods

    d. In enabling more advanced manufacturing and supply chains?

    e. What other metrics would be useful, if any? What new data collection tools might be necessary, if any?

    f. How might IoT fit within the existing industry classification systems? What new sector codes are necessary, if any?

    12. Should the government measure the economic impact of IoT? If so, how?

    a. Are there novel analytical tools that should be applied?

    b. Does IoT create unique challenges for impact measurement?

    13. What impact will the proliferation of IoT have on industrial practices, for example, advanced manufacturing, supply chains, or agriculture?

    a. What will be the benefits, if any?

    b. What will be the challenges, if any?

    c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take in response to these challenges, if any?

    14. What impact (positive or negative) might the growth of IoT have on the U.S. workforce? What are the potential benefits of IoT for employees and/or employers? What role or actions should the government take in response to workforce challenges raised by IoT, if any?

    Policy Issues: A growing dependence on embedded devices in all aspects of life raises questions about the confidentiality of personal data, the integrity of operations, and the availability and resiliency of critical services.

    15. What are the main policy issues that affect or are affected by IoT? How should the government address or respond to these issues?

    16. How should the government address or respond to cybersecurity concerns about IoT?

    a. What are the cybersecurity concerns raised specifically by IoT? How are they different from other cybersecurity concerns?

    b. How do these concerns change based on the categorization of IoT applications (e.g., based on categories for Question 4, or consumer vs. industrial)?

    c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take regarding policies, rules, and/or standards with regards to IoT cybersecurity, if any?

    17. How should the government address or respond to privacy concerns about IoT?

    a. What are the privacy concerns raised specifically by IoT? How are they different from other privacy concerns?

    b. Do these concerns change based on the categorization of IoT applications (e.g., based on categories for Question 4, or consumer vs. industrial)?

    c. What role or actions should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government take regarding policies, rules, and/or standards with regards to privacy and the IoT?

    18. Are there other consumer protection issues that are raised specifically by IoT? If so, what are they and how should the government respond to the concerns?

    19. In what ways could IoT affect and be affected by questions of economic equity?

    a. In what ways could IoT potentially help disadvantaged communities or groups? Rural communities?

    b. In what ways might IoT create obstacles for these communities or groups?

    c. What effects, if any, will Internet access have on IoT, and what effects, if any, will IoT have on Internet access?

    d. What role, if any, should the government play in ensuring that the positive impacts of IoT reach all Americans and keep the negatives from disproportionately impacting disadvantaged communities or groups?

    International Engagement: As mentioned earlier, efforts have begun in foreign jurisdictions, standards organizations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore the potential of, and develop standards, specifications, and best practices for IoT. The Department is seeking input on how to best monitor and/or engage in various international fora as part of the government's ongoing efforts to encourage innovation and growth of the digital economy.

    20. What factors should the Department consider in its international engagement in:

    a. Standards and specification organizations?

    b. Bilateral and multilateral engagement?

    c. Industry alliances?

    d. Other?

    21. What issues, if any, regarding IoT should the Department focus on through international engagement?

    22. Are there Internet governance issues now or in the foreseeable future specific to IoT?

    23. Are there policies that the government should seek to promote with international partners that would be helpful in the IoT context?

    24. What factors can impede the growth of the IoT outside the U. S. (e.g., data or service localization requirements or other barriers to trade), or otherwise constrain the ability of U.S. companies to provide those services on a global basis? How can the government help to alleviate these factors?

    Additional Issues:

    25. Are there IoT policy areas that could be appropriate for multistakeholder engagement, similar to the NTIA-run processes on privacy and cybersecurity?

    26. What role should the Department of Commerce play within the federal government in helping to address the challenges and opportunities of IoT? How can the Department of Commerce best collaborate with stakeholders on IoT matters?

    27. How should government and the private sector collaborate to ensure that infrastructure, policy, technology, and investment are working together to best fuel IoT growth and development? Would an overarching strategy, such as those deployed in other countries, be useful in this space? If the answer is yes, what should that strategy entail?

    28. What are any additional relevant issues not raised above, and what role, if any, should the Department of Commerce and, more generally, the federal government play in addressing them?

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07892 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0011] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records, A0600-37b DAPE, entitled “Unfavorable Information Files,” to record Board action and to provide pattern of subsequent unfavorable information. Information filed in the performance portion of the Official Military Personnel File is also used by Department of Army promotion/selection boards when the individual has been afforded due process.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before May 6, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    * Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Department of the Army, Privacy Office, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905 or by calling (703) 428-6185.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on March 28, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0600-37b DAPE System name:

    Unfavorable Information Files (December 8, 2000, 65 FR 77002)

    Changes: Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Summary of unfavorable information, copy of letter of notification to individual, individual's response or appeal, summary of consideration of response or appeal, disposition determination, and voting record of Board members. Personal data includes full name, Social Security Number (SSN), DoD ID number, grade/rank, mailing address, email, unit and location at discharge or separation, work and home telephone numbers.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Department of Defense Directive 1030.01, Victim and Witness Assistance; DoDI 1030.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures; and Army Regulation 600-37, Unfavorable Information; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To victims and witnesses of a crime for purposes of providing information, consistent with the requirements of the Victim and Witness Assistance Program, regarding the investigation and disposition of an offense.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “By individual's full name and SSN/DoD ID Number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in file cabinets are accessible only to authorized personnel who are properly instructed in the permissible use. The files are not accessible to the public or to persons within the command without an official need to know. File cabinets have locking capabilities and offices are locked during non-work hours. Army Activities and approved users ensure that electronic records collected and used are maintained in controlled areas accessible only to authorized personnel. Access to computerized data is restricted by use of Common Access Cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The system and electronic backups are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”

    Notification Procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Department of the Army, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.

    Inquirer should furnish full name, SSN/DoD ID Number, current address and telephone number, and sufficient details concerning time and place of event to ensure locating pertinent records, and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If Executed Outside the United States:

    `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record Access Procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written request to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Headquarters, Department of the Army, ATTN: DAPE-MPD, 4000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-4000.

    Inquirer should furnish full name, SSN/DoD ID Number, current address and telephone number, and sufficient details concerning time and place of event to ensure locating pertinent records, and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If Executed Outside the United States:

    `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-07879 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DoD-2016-OS-0033] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: ODCMO, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, ATTN: Mailbox 24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Leadership and Organizational Development Office, 2400 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B683, ATTN: Dr. James Cully, Washington, DC 20301-2400, or call, at 703.695.7386.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: OUSD—Policy Pulse Survey 2016; OMB Control Number 0704-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record responses from contractor personnel employed within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and its components. The survey results are analyzed by the Leadership and Organizational Development Office to assess the progress of the current human capital strategy and to address emerging human capital and training issues.

    Affected Public: Business.

    Annual Burden Hours: 76.5.

    Number of Respondents: 153.

    Responses Per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 306.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are defense contractors employed by Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who provide analytic, administrative, and operations services. The survey is administered to all employees of the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy as required by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy to assess the effectiveness and progress of the current human capital strategy. If contractors are not permitted to take the survey then the assessment effectively excludes ~20% of the employee population, diminishing the accuracy of the survey and resulting conclusions.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07848 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0041] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Application (1894-0001) AGENCY:

    Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 6, 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-0041. 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-115, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Corinne Sauri, 202-260-2533.

    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: Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Application (1894-0001).

    OMB Control Number: 1855-New.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 120.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 29,760.

    Abstract: The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) is a competitive grant program through the Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. The TIF is designed to support projects that develop and implement performance-based compensation systems for teachers, principals, and other personnel in order to increase educator effectiveness and student achievement in high-need schools.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07849 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—238] Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 15, 2016, Middlesex Energy Center, LLC, as owner and operator of a new combined cycle electric powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to § 201(d) of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61. FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register. 42 U.S.C. 8311(d) and 10 CFR 501.61(c).

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to FUA in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new combined cycle electric powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    OWNER: Middlesex Energy Center, LLC,

    CAPACITY: 560 megawatts (MW).

    PLANT LOCATION: Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, New Jersey.

    IN-SERVICE DATE: May 2019.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2016. Christopher Lawrence, Electricity Policy Analyst, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07874 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Notice of the Stakeholder Meeting To Receive Input on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Outyear Marine and Hydrokinetic Program Strategy AGENCY:

    Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of the Stakeholder Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Wind and Water Power Technologies Office within the U.S. DOE intends to hold a Stakeholder Meeting on the request for information (RFI) to receive input for the U.S. DOE Outyear Marine and Hydrokinetic Program Strategy in Washington, DC on April 27, 2016. The RFI is posted on the EERE Exchange Web site: https://goo.gl/Ei6ppc. Due to space constraints, there is limited seating, therefore the public meeting will be open to a limited number of parties. If you are interested in attending the meeting, please express interest in attending by emailing [email protected] Please include with the subject line “Meeting Interest,” your name, organization, and contact information. The deadline to send notice of your interest, or interested parties, is Friday, April 8 at 11:59 p.m. ET. You will be notified via email on April 11 if you were confirmed as an attendee. All individuals, including those not able to attend will have the opportunity to submit comments to the RFI until 5:00 p.m. ET April 29, 2016.

    DATES:

    DOE will host the Stakeholder Meeting from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Capitol Hilton, 1001 16th St. NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maggie Yancey, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-4536. For email, please include in the subject line “Further Information,” and in the body of the email: your name, organization, contact information, and your specific question or inquiry. [email protected]v.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation

    The event is open to the public based upon space availability. All individuals, including those not able to attend will have the opportunity to submit comments to the RFI until 5:00 p.m. ET April 29, 2016. The RFI is posted on the EERE Exchange Web site: https://goo.gl/Ei6ppc. Participants should limit information and comments to those based on personal experience, individual advice, information, or facts regarding this topic. It is not the object of this session to obtain any group position or consensus from the meeting participants. To most effectively use the limited time, please refrain from passing judgment on another participant's recommendations or advice, and instead, concentrate on your individual experiences.

    Issued on April 1, 2016 in Washington, DC. Mark Higgins, Deputy Director, Wind and Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07867 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-96-000.

    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.

    Description: Application of Tucson Electric Power Company under FPA Section 203.

    Filed Date: 3/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160329-5214.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-97-000.

    Applicants: GP Renewables & Trading, LLC.

    Description: Application of GP Renewables & Trading LLC for Approval Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.

    Filed Date: 3/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160330-5279.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-77-000.

    Applicants: MS Solar 3, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of MS Solar 3, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5039.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-78-000.

    Applicants: MS Solar 2, LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EG or FC of MS Solar 2, LLC.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5040.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1939-003.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Order 1000 Interregional Compliance Filing Pursuant to the February 2 Order to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160303-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2265-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Revising Resource Hubs to be effective 9/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 3/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160330-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1293-000.

    Applicants: White Oak Solar, LLC

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: White Oak Solar, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 5/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160330-5248.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1294-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Notice of Termination of Settlement Agreement No. 494 of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Filed Date: 3/30/16.

    Accession Number: 20160330-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/20/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1295-000.

    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Member Rate Schedule Tariff Filing to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5013.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1296-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Forward Reserve Heat Rate Calculation to be effective 6/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1297-000.

    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MRA 27 Rate Case Filing to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1298-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: DSA State of CA. Dept. of Water Resources Citrus Pump Station Project to be effective 4/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1299-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service Agmt Painted Hills Wind Developers to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5113.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1300-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA and Distribution Service Agmt New-Indy Oxnard, LLC to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1302-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SCE Amends 4 Agmts—2016 Revised Added Facilities Rate & ISO Rate to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5191.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1303-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ELL-SRMPA 9th Extension of Interim Agreement to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1304-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to MISO-PJM JOA re: MISO Corporate Name Change to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5228.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1305-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SPP-MISO JOA Revisions to Update MISO's Name and Other Clean-up Edits to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5230.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1306-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PacifiCorp Energy Construction Agmt ? Pavant 2 to be effective 3/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5232.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1307-000.

    Applicants: ITC Interconnection LLC, Michigan Electric Transmission Company,, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ITC & Michigan Electric submit Interconnection Agreement No. 4427 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5234.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1308-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Common Facilities Agreement between WPSC and ATCLLC to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5244.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1309-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-03-31_MISO-PJM JOA Name Change Filing to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1310-000.

    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Project Services Agreement between WPSC and ATCLLC to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5249.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1311-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-03-31_MISO-SPP JOA Name Change Filing to be effective 5/30/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5255.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1312-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 1771R6 NPPD NITSA NOA to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5260.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1313-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-03-31_Attachment GG Cross-Reference Revisions to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5266.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1314-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2198R20 Kansas Power Pool NITSA NOA to be effective 3/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5270.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1315-000.

    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, ITC Interconnection LLC, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEP submits Original Interconnection Agreement No. 4426 with ITCI to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 3/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160331-5353.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07857 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1275-000] Innovative Solar 46, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Innovative Solar 46, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 20, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07855 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL16-52-000] Michigan South Central Power Agency; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 30, 2016, Michigan South Central Power Agency (MSCPA) filed a notice of cancellation of Original Sheet 1 which set forth MSCPA's Reactive Support Revenue Requirement for the provision of Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Services to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator from the Endicott Generating Station, effective June 1, 2016.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 20, 2016.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07854 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1277-000] White Pine Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of White Pine Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is April 20, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07856 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-117-000] Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Dalton Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Dalton Expansion Project (Project), proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco requests authorization to construct and operate about 113 miles of new natural gas pipeline and associated facilities in Coweta, Carroll, Douglas, Paulding, Bartow, Gordon, and Murray Counties, Georgia and a new compressor station in Carroll County, Georgia. Additionally, Transco plans to modify existing facilities along its mainline transmission system in Virginia and North Carolina to accommodate bidirectional flow. Transco has indicated that the Project would provide 448,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation service to markets in northwest Georgia.

    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    The proposed Dalton Expansion Project includes the following facilities:

    • A new 21,830 horsepower compressor station (Compressor Station 116) in Carroll County, Georgia;

    • three new meter stations in Bartow and Murray Counties, Georgia;

    • about 7.6 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline in Coweta and Carroll Counties, Georgia;

    • 48.2 miles of new 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Carroll, Douglas, Paulding, and Bartow Counties, Georgia;

    • 53.5 miles of new 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Bartow, Gordon, and Murray Counties, Georgia;

    • 1.5 miles of new 16-inch-diameter pipeline in Murray County, Georgia; and ancillary facilities associated with the new pipeline including mainline valves and pig1 launcher/receiver facilities.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection at:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371

    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before May 2, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-117-000 with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” You must select the type of filing you are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing”; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-117). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: March 31, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07853 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9944-69-OA] Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) and five SAB committees described in this notice. Appointments are anticipated to be filled by the start of Fiscal Year 2017 (October 2016).

    DATES:

    Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than May 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically as described below may submit a paper copy to the Designated Federal Officers (DFO) for the committees, as identified below. General inquiries regarding the work of the CASAC, the SAB or SAB committees also may be directed to the appropriate DFO.

    Background: The CASAC is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee, established pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(2), to provide advice, information and recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical aspects of air quality criteria and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The SAB is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee, established in 1978 under the authority of the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and technical peer review, consultation, advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the scientific bases for EPA's actions and programs. Members of the CASAC and the SAB constitute distinguished bodies of non-EPA scientists, engineers, economists, and behavioral and social scientists who are nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a three-year term and serve as Special Government Employees who provide independent expert advice to the agency. Additional information about the CASAC is available at http://www.epa.gov/casac and information about the SAB is available at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Expertise Sought for CASAC: Established in 1977 under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments, the chartered CASAC reviews and offers scientific advice to the EPA Administrator on technical aspects of national ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants (ozone; particulate matter; carbon monoxide; nitrogen oxides; sulfur dioxide; and lead). As required under the CAA section 109(d), CASAC is composed of seven members, with at least one member of the National Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing state air pollution control agencies. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the CASAC who represent state air pollution control agencies and who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to air pollution and air quality issues. The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists with expertise described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality relating to criteria pollutants. For further information about the CASAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2050 or by email at [email protected]

    Expertise Sought for the SAB: The chartered SAB provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of EPA science and research programs. All the work of SAB committees and panels is under the direction of the chartered SAB. The chartered SAB reviews all SAB committee and panel draft reports and determines whether they are appropriate to send to the EPA Administrator. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the chartered SAB in the following disciplines as they relate to human health and the environment: Analytical chemistry; ecological sciences and ecological assessment; economics; engineering; geochemistry; health disparities; health sciences; hydrology; hydrogeology; medicine; microbiology; modeling; pediatrics; public health; risk assessment; social, behavioral and decision sciences; statistics; and toxicology.

    The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists with expertise described above who have knowledge and experience in air quality; agricultural sciences; climate change; drinking water; energy and the environment; water quality; water quantity; water reuse; ecosystem services; community environmental health; sustainability; chemical safety; green chemistry; human health risk assessment; homeland security; and waste and waste management.

    For further information about the chartered SAB membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at [email protected]

    The SAB Staff Office is also seeking nominations for experts for five SAB committees: The Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; the Drinking Water Committee; the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee; the Environmental Engineering Committee; and the Radiation Advisory Committee.

    (1) The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) provides advice through the chartered SAB regarding selected toxicological reviews of environmental chemicals available on EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience in chemical assessments. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines: Toxicology, including neurotoxicology, developmental/reproductive toxicology, and inhalation toxicology; carcinogenesis; biostatistics; and risk assessment. For further information about the CAAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Suhair Shallal, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2057 or by email at [email protected]

    (2) The SAB Drinking Water Committee (DWC) provides advice on the scientific and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on drinking water issues. Members should have expertise in one or more of the following disciplines: Environmental engineering; epidemiology; microbiology; public health; and risk assessment. For further information about the DWC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-4885 or by email at [email protected]

    (3) The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) provides advice on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts in environmental economics to serve on the EEAC. For further information about the EEAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2073 or by email at [email protected]

    (4) The SAB Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) provides advice on risk management technologies to control and prevent pollution. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the EEC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: Chemical fate and transport; environmental remediation and technology; and geochemistry and geochemical reactions. For further information about the EEC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2134 or by email at [email protected]

    (5) The Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) provides advice on radiation protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on the RAC with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: Radiation biostatistics; radiation epidemiology; and radiation exposure. For further information about the RAC membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, by telephone at (202) 564-2134 or by email at [email protected]

    Selection Criteria for the CASAC, SAB and the SAB Committees Includes —Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in relevant fields; —Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on committees; —Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations; and other considerations; and —For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific perspectives.

    As these committees undertake specific advisory activities, the SAB Staff Office will consider two additional criteria for each new activity: absence of financial conflicts of interest and absence of an appearance of a loss of impartiality.

    How To Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to these advisory committees. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred) using the online nomination form under the “Nomination of Experts” category at the bottom of the SAB home page at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested below. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

    Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which nominees are to be considered. The following information should be provided on the nomination form: contact information for the person making the nomination; contact information for the nominee; the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the nominee's curriculum vitae; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating current position, educational background; research activities; sources of research funding for the last two years; and recent service on other national advisory committees or national professional organizations. To help the agency evaluate the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please indicate how you learned of this nomination opportunity. Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public comment process described below, or who are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact the DFO for the committee, as identified above. The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgement will invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of the committee; and any questions the nominee has regarding membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of Candidates on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public comments on each List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days from the date the list is posted. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating candidates.

    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the “Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded through the “Ethics Requirements for Advisors” link on the SAB home page at http://www.epa.gov/sab. This form should not be submitted as part of a nomination.

    Dated: March 30, 2016. Thomas H. Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07918 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Schedule Change and Deletion of Consent Agenda Items From March 31, 2016 Open Meeting March 31, 2016.

    The order of presentations for the Federal Communications Commission Open Meeting on March 31, 2016 and listed in the Commission's Notice of March 24, 2016, has been changed and is listed below. In addition, the Consent Agenda scheduled for consideration at the Open Meeting has been deleted. Items 1, 3, 4 and 5 from the consent agenda have been adopted by the Commission.

    Please note that the time for the open meeting is rescheduled from 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The prompt and orderly conduct of the Commission's business requires this change and no earlier announcement was practicable.

    1 MEDIA TITLE: Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (MB Docket No. 11-43). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on proposals to expand the amount of and access to video described programming, for the benefit of consumers who are blind or visually impaired. 3 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and other Telecommunications Services. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a proposed framework for ensuring that consumers have the tools they need to make informed choices about how their data is used and when it is shared by their broadband providers. 2 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket 11-42); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support (WC Docket No. 09-197); and Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration to comprehensively restructure and modernize the Lifeline program to efficiently and effectively connect low-income Americans to broadband, strengthen program oversight and administration, and take additional measures to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Consent Agenda 1 MEDIA TITLE: Application for a Minor Change to the Facilities of Station WJKN(AM), Jackson, Michigan; and, Application for a Minor Change to the Facilities of Station KTGG(AM), Okemos, Michigan. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Christian Family Network's seeking review of a Media Bureau dismissal of CFN's informal objection. 2 MEDIA TITLE: Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC Application for Construction Permit for New FM Station WURB(FM), at Cross City, Florida; and, Application for Construction Permit for Minor Modification to WURB(FM), Cross City, Florida. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC seeking review of Media Bureau Reconsideration Decision. 3 MEDIA TITLE: Applications of Powell Meredith Communications Co. and Community Translator Network, LLC for Consent to Assign Construction Permits, K262CM, Needles, California, et al. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Amy Meredith, president of Powell Meredith Communications Company seeking review of a Media Bureau Decision. 4 MEDIA TITLE: Comparative Consideration of Two Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New Noncommercial Educational FM Stations. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order which addresses two groups of mutually exclusive applications for new NCE FM station construction permits. 5 MEDIA TITLE: Christian Family Network, Inc. Application for Reinstatement and Renewal of License of Station DWOLY(AM), Battle Creek, Michigan; and, Request for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Station DWOLY(AM), Battle Creek, Michigan. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Christian Family Network, Inc. contesting a Media Bureau dismissal and termination of the operating authority of DWOLY(AM).

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07844 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, March 31, 2016 March 24, 2016.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, March 31, 2016, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 MEDIA TITLE: Video Description: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (MB Docket No. 11-43). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on proposals to expand the amount of and access to video described programming, for the benefit of consumers who are blind or visually impaired. 2 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket 11-42); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support (WC Docket No. 09-197); and Connect America Fund (WC Docket No. 10-90). SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration to comprehensively restructure and modernize the Lifeline program to efficiently and effectively connect low-income Americans to broadband, strengthen program oversight and administration, and take additional measures to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. 3 WIRELINE COMPETITION TITLE: Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and other Telecommunications Services. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on a proposed framework for ensuring that consumers have the tools they need to make informed choices about how their data is used and when it is shared by their broadband providers. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Consent Agenda The Commission will consider the following subjects listed below as a consent agenda and these items will not be presented individually: 1 MEDIA TITLE: Application for a Minor Change to the Facilities of Station WJKN(AM), Jackson, Michigan; and, Application for a Minor Change to the Facilities of Station KTGG(AM), Okemos, Michigan. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Christian Family Network's seeking review of a Media Bureau dismissal of CFN's informal objection. 2 MEDIA TITLE: Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC Application for Construction Permit for New FM Station WURB(FM), at Cross City, Florida; and, Application for Construction Permit for Minor Modification to WURB(FM), Cross City, Florida. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Urban One Broadcasting Network, LLC seeking review of Media Bureau Reconsideration Decision. 3 MEDIA TITLE: Applications of Powell Meredith Communications Co. and Community Translator Network, LLC for Consent to Assign Construction Permits, K262CM, Needles, California, et al. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Amy Meredith, president of Powell Meredith Communications Company seeking review of a Media Bureau Decision. 4 MEDIA TITLE: Comparative Consideration of Two Groups of Mutually Exclusive Applications for Permits to Construct New Noncommercial Educational FM Stations. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order which addresses two groups of mutually exclusive applications for new NCE FM station construction permits. 5 MEDIA TITLE: Christian Family Network, Inc. Application for Reinstatement and Renewal of License of Station DWOLY(AM), Battle Creek, Michigan; and, Request for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Station DWOLY(AM), Battle Creek, Michigan. SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order concerning an Application for Review filed by Christian Family Network, Inc. contesting a Media Bureau dismissal and termination of the operating authority of DWOLY(AM).

    The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07846 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice of Termination: 10342 Sunshine State Community Bank, Port Orange, Florida

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10342, Sunshine State Community Bank, Port Orange, Florida (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Sunshine State Community Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

    Effective April 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07861 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10084, First Piedmont Bank; Winder, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for First Piedmont Bank, Winder, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of First Piedmont Bank on July 17, 2009. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07859 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10259, Metro Bank of Dade County; Miami, Florida

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Metro Bank of Dade County, Miami, Florida (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Metro Bank of Dade County on July 16, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07860 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection Renewals; Comment Request (3064-0001, -0174, -0188 & -0191) AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The FDIC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of existing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the FDIC is soliciting comment on the renewal of the information collections described below.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:

    http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/.

    Email: [email protected] Include the name and number of the collection in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Gary A. Kuiper (202.898.3877), Counsel, MB-3016 or Manny Cabeza (202.898.3767), Counsel MB-3105, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

    Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand-delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 17th Street Building (located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

    All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gary Kuiper or Manny Cabeza, at the FDIC address above.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposal to renew the following currently-approved collections of information:

    1. Title: Charter and Federal Deposit Insurance Application.

    OMB Number: 3064-0001.

    Affected Public: Banks or savings associations wishing to become FDIC-insured depository institutions.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Annual Number of Respondents: 143.

    Estimated Time per Response: 125 hours.

    Total Annual Burden: 17,875 hours.

    General Description: The Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires financial institutions to apply to the FDIC to obtain deposit insurance. This collection provides FDIC with the information needed to evaluate the applications.

    2. Title: Interagency Guidance on Funding and Liquidity Risk Management.

    OMB Number: 3064-0174.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Frequency of Response: Occasionally. (Paragraph 14); Quarterly (Paragraph 20).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,947.

    Burden Estimate:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Average hours per response Responses per year Total hours
    Paragraph 14 (Record Keeping) Large Institutions (over $20 billion in assets) 19 720 1 13,680 Mid-size Institutions ($1 to $20 billion in assets) 329 240 1 78,960 Small Institutions (less than $1 billion in assets) 3,599 80 1 287,920 Paragraph 14 Subtotal 3,947 380,560 Paragraph 20 (Reporting) All supervised institutions 3,947 4 12 189,456 Total Burden Hours 570,016

    General Description: The information collection includes reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to sound risk management principles applicable to insured depository institutions. To enable an institution and its supervisor to evaluate the liquidity risk exposure of an institution's individual business lines and for the institution as a whole, the guidance summarizes principles of sound liquidity risk management and advocates the establishment of policies and procedures that consider liquidity costs, benefits, and risks in strategic planning. In addition, the guidance encourages the use of liquidity risk reports that provide detailed and aggregate information on items such as cash flow gaps, cash flow projections, assumptions used in cash flow projections, asset and funding concentrations, funding availability, and early warning or risk indicators. This is intended to enable management to assess an institution's sensitivity to changes in market conditions, the institution's financial performance, and other important risk factors.

    3. Title: Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans.

    OMB Number: 3064-0188.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Frequency of Response: Occasionally.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,428.

    Burden Estimate:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Review and Provide Copy of Full Interior Appraisal (reporting burden) Non-automated responders 809 13 .25 2,629 Automated responders 1,619 13 .08 1,684 Subtotal 2,428 4,313 Investigate and Verify Requirement for Second Appraisal (recordkeeping burden) Non-automated responders 809 8 .25 1,618 Automated responders 1,619 8 .08 1,036 Subtotal 2,428 2,654 Conduct and Provide Second Appraisal (reporting burden) Non-automated responders 809 1 .25 202 Automated responders 1,619 1 .08 129 Subtotal 2,428 331 Total Annual Burden 7,298

    General Description: Section 1471 of the Dodd-Frank Act established a new Truth in Lending (TILA) section 129H, which contains appraisal requirements applicable to higher-risk mortgages and prohibits a creditor from extending credit in the form of a higher-risk mortgage loan to any consumer without meeting those requirements. A higher-risk mortgage is defined as a residential mortgage loan secured by a principal dwelling with an annual percentage rate (APR) that exceeds the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction as of the date the interest rate is set by certain enumerated percentage point spreads. Additionally, 12 CFR part 1026 allows a creditor to make a higher-risk mortgage loan only if certain conditions are met. The creditor must obtain a written appraisal performed by a certified or licensed appraiser who must conduct a physical property visit of the interior of the property. At application, the applicant must be provided with a statement regarding the purpose of the appraisal; a notice that that the creditor will provide the applicant a copy of any written appraisal; and notice that that the applicant may choose to have a separate appraisal conducted at the expense of the applicant. The creditor must also provide the consumer with a free copy of any written appraisals obtained for the transaction at least three business days before closing.

    The rule also requires a higher-risk mortgage loan creditor to obtain an additional written appraisal, from a different licensed or certified appraiser, at no cost to the borrower, if: The higher-risk mortgage loan will finance the acquisition of the consumer's principal dwelling; the seller acquired the home within 180 days of signing the agreement to sell the property; and the consumer is purchasing the home for a higher price than the seller paid.

    The additional written appraisal generally must include the following information: (1) An analysis of the difference in sale prices (i.e., the sale price paid by the seller and the acquisition price of the property as set forth in the consumer's purchase agreement); (2) Changes in market conditions; and (3) Any improvements made to the property between the date of the previous sale and the current sale.

    The information collection requirements are needed to protect consumers and promote the safety and soundness of creditors making higher-risk mortgage loans. This information is used by creditors to evaluate real estate collateral in higher-risk mortgage loan transactions and by consumers entering these transactions.

    4. Title: Interagency Guidance on Leveraged Lending.

    OMB Number: 3064-0191.

    Affected Public: Insured state nonmember banks and state savings associations.

    Frequency of Response: Occasionally.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Burden Estimate:

    Number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated
  • annual frequency
  • Estimated average hours per response Estimated total annual burden hours
    Implementation Burden Recordkeeping burden 1 1 986.7 986.7 Total Implementation Burden 986.7 Ongoing Burden Recordkeeping burden 9 1 529.3 4,763.7 Total Ongoing Burden 4,763.7 Total PRA Burden 5,750.4

    General Description: The Guidance describes expectations for the sound risk management of leveraged lending activities, including the importance for institutions to develop and maintain: (a) Transactions structured to reflect a sound business premise, an appropriate capital structure, and reasonable cash flow and balance sheet leverage; (b) A definition of leveraged lending that facilitates consistent application across all business lines; (c) Well-defined underwriting standards; (d) A credit limit and concentration framework consistent with the institution's risk appetite; (e) Sound MIS that enable management to identify, aggregate, and monitor leveraged exposures and comply with policy across all business lines; (f) Strong pipeline management policies and procedures; and (g) Guidelines for conducting periodic portfolio and pipeline stress tests to quantify the potential impact of economic and market conditions on the institution's asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and capital.

    The guidance outlines high-level principles related to safe and sound leveraged lending activities, including underwriting considerations, assessing and documenting enterprise value, risk management expectations for credits awaiting distribution, stress testing expectations and portfolio management, and risk management expectations, all of which will be reviewed during supervisory examinations to assess how well the financial institution is managing its risk. Banks will not be submitting documentation to the FDIC. Rather, FDIC examiners will review this documentation during examinations to assess a bank's management of its risk.

    Request for Comment

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and 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 collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 31st day of March 2016.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07819 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 010071-044.

    Title: Cruise Lines International Association Agreement.

    Parties: Acromas Shipping, Ltd./Saga Shipping; Aida Cruises; AMA Waterways; American Cruise Lines, Inc.; Aqua Expeditions Pte. Ltd.; Australian Pacific Touring Pty Ltd.; Avalon Waterways; Azamara Cruises; Carnival Cruise Lines; CDF Croisieres de France; Celebrity Cruises, Inc.; Celestyal Cruises; Costa Cruise Lines; Compagnie Du Ponant; Croisieurope; Cruise & Maritime Voyages; Crystal Cruises; Cunard Line; Disney Cruise Line; Emerald Waterways; Evergreen Tours; Fred.Olsen Cruise Lines Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd Kreuzfahrten Gmbh; Hebridean Island Cruises; Holland America Line; Hurtigruten, Inc.; Island Cruises; Lindblad Expeditions Pty Ltd.; Luftner Cruises; Mekong Waterways; MSC Cruises; NCL Corporation; Oceania Cruises; P & O Cruises; P & O Cruises Australia; Paul Gauguin Cruises; Pearl Seas Cruises; Phoenix Reisen Gmbh; Princess Cruises; Pullmantur Cruises Ship Management Ltd.; Regent Seven Seas Cruises; Riviera Tours Ltd.; Royal Caribbean International; Scenic Tours UK Ltd.; Seabourn Cruise Line; SeaDream Yacht Club; Shearings Holidays Ltd.; Silversea Cruises, Ltd.; Star Cruises (HK) Limited; St. Helena Line/Andrew Weir Shipping Ltd.; Swan Hellenic; Tauck River Cruising; The River Cruise Line; Thomson Cruises; Travelmarvel; Tui Cruises Gmbh; Un-Cruises Adventures; Uniworld River Cruises, Inc.; Venice Simplon-Orient-Express Ltd./Belmond; Voyages of Discovery; Voyages to Antiquity (UK) Ltd.; and Windstar Cruises.

    Filing Party: Andre Picciurro, Esq. Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP; Emerald Plaza, 402 West Broadway, Suite 1300; San Diego, CA 92101-3542

    Synopsis: The amendment would add language to clarify that the agreement can represent its members before federal and state judiciaries.

    Agreement No.: 011223-052.

    Title: Transpacific Stabilization Agreement.

    Parties: American President Lines, Ltd. and APL Co. PTE Ltd.; (operating as a single carrier); Maersk Line A/S; CMA CGM, S.A.; COSCO Container Lines Company Ltd; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Orient Overseas Container Line Limited; Yangming Marine Transport Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Company Limited and China Shipping Container Lines Company Limited as parties to the agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012288-002.

    Title: Hoegh/NYK Atlantic/Pacific Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hoegh Autoliners AS and Nippon Yusen Kaisha.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth St. NW.; Washington, DC 20006.

    Synopsis: The amendment adds the trades between the U.S. West Coast, on the one hand, and Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand on the other hand, to the geographic scope of the agreement.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07890 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-0469] 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

    National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS, OMB No. 0920-0469, exp. 5/31/2016)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In 2012, the most recent year for which complete information is available, more than 580,000 people died of cancer and more than 1.5 million were diagnosed with cancer. It is estimated that 13.8 million Americans are currently alive with a history of cancer (2). In the U.S., state-based cancer registries are the only method for systematically collecting and reporting population based information about cancer incidence and outcomes such as survival. These data are used to measure the changing incidence and burden of each cancer; identify populations at increased or increasing risk; target preventive measures; and measure the success or failure of cancer control efforts in the U.S.

    In 1992, Congress passed the Cancer Registries Amendment Act which established the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). The NPCR provides support for state-based cancer registries that collect, manage and analyze data about cancer cases. The state-based cancer registries report information to CDC through the National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS), (OMB No. 0920-0469 5/31/2016). CDC plans to request OMB approval to continue collecting this information for three years. Data definitions will be updated to reflect changes in national standards for cancer diagnosis and coding, but the number of respondents and the burden per respondent will not change.

    The NPCR CSS allows CDC to collect, aggregate, evaluate and disseminate cancer incidence data at the national level. The NPCR CSS is the primary source of information for United States Cancer Statistics (USCS), which CDC has published annually since 2002. The latest USCS report published in 2015 provided cancer statistics for 99% of the United States population from all cancer registries whose data met national data standards. Prior to the publication of USCS, cancer incidence data at the national level were available for only 14% of the population of the United States.

    The NPCR CSS also allows CDC to monitor cancer trends over time, describe geographic variation in cancer incidence throughout the country, and provide incidence data on racial/ethnic populations and rare cancers. These activities and analyses further support CDC's planning and evaluation efforts for state and national cancer control and prevention. In addition, datasets can be made available for secondary analysis.

    Respondents are NPCR-supported central cancer registries (CCR) in 45 U.S. states, 2 territories, and the District of Columbia. Thirty-eight CCR submit data elements specified for the Standard NPCR CSS Report. Ten specialized CCR submit data elements specified for the Enhanced NPCR CSS Report, which includes additional information about treatment and follow-up for cases of breast, colorectal, and chronic myeloid leukemia cases diagnosed in 2011. Each CCR is asked to transmit two data files to CDC per year. The first file, submitted in January, is a preliminary report consisting of one year of data for the most recent year of available data. CDC evaluates the preliminary data for completeness and quality and provides a report back to the CCR. The second file, submitted by November, contains cumulative cancer incidence data from the first diagnosis year for which the cancer registry collected data with the assistance of NPCR funds (e.g., 1995) through 12 months past the close of the most recent diagnosis year (e.g., 2014). The cumulative file is used for analysis and reporting. The burden for each file transmission is estimated at two hours per response. Because cancer incidence data are already collected and aggregated at the state level the additional burden of reporting the information to CDC is small.

    All information is transmitted to CDC electronically. Participation is required as a condition of the cooperative agreement with CDC. There are no costs to respondents except their time.

    The total estimated annualized burden hours are 192 (152 for the Standard NPCR CSS Report, and 40 for the Enhanced NPCR CSS Report).

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Central Cancer Registries in States, Territories and the District of Columbia Standard NPCR CSS Report 38 2 2 Enhanced NPCR CSS Report 10 2 2
    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. 2016-07806 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of March 16, 2016. The amendment is being made to reflect a change in the Date and Time portion of the document. The Date of the meeting is changed to May 25, 2016. There are no other changes.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14115), FDA announced that a meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee would be held on May 24, 2016. On page 14115, in the second column, the Date and Time portion of the document is changed to read as follows:

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 25, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07899 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1099] Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level; Draft Guidance for Industry; Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants; Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level,” a supporting document entitled “Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants” (the supporting document), and a risk assessment report entitled “Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report” (the risk assessment report). The draft guidance, when finalized, will identify for industry an action level for inorganic arsenic in rice cereals for infants that will help protect public health and is achievable with the use of current good manufacturing practice. It also will describe our intended sampling and enforcement approach. The risk assessment report includes a quantitative component (a mathematical model) that estimates occurrence of lung cancer and bladder cancer from long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products, and a qualitative component that describes our review and evaluation of the scientific literature of certain non-cancer health risks, in certain susceptible life stages, from inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that we consider your comment on this draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance, the supporting document, or the risk assessment report by July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1099 for “Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level; Draft Guidance for Industry; Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants; Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report; Availability.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance and the supporting document to the Division of Plant Products and Beverages, Office of Food Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the draft guidance, supporting document, and risk assessment report.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Philip L. Chao, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-24), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Arsenic is present in the environment as a naturally occurring substance or as a result of contamination from human activity. It is found in water, air (e.g., in dust or particulates), soil, and foods. In foods, arsenic may be present as inorganic arsenic (the primary toxic form of arsenic) or organic arsenic. Exposure to inorganic arsenic is associated with many adverse human health effects, including cancer. FDA has been monitoring the levels of total arsenic in foods for decades, as part of our Total Diet Study, an ongoing survey and analysis of the average American diet (Ref. 1), and our Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware and Radionuclides in Food Program (Ref. 2), but only in recent years has methodology been available to FDA laboratories to readily distinguish between inorganic and organic arsenic in a large number and variety of food samples. Arsenic is inadvertently taken up by plants through pathways for essential or beneficial nutrients, and, compared to other cereals, such as oat, wheat, and barley, rice is much more efficient at arsenic accumulation. In 2011, we increased our testing for arsenic in certain foods. In 2012 and 2013, we released analytical results for approximately 1,300 samples of rice and rice products as part of a major effort to understand and manage arsenic-related risks associated with the consumption of these foods in the United States (Ref. 3). More recently, in April 2016 we released the results of our analysis of inorganic arsenic in 526 samples collected in 2014; the samples included rice cereals for infants, as well as non-rice infant cereal and other foods commonly eaten by infants and toddlers (Ref. 4).

    We have focused on rice and rice products because evidence from FDA's Total Diet Study revealed that arsenic levels, although varying, tend to be higher in these foods than in others, and rice products are common in the average American diet. Collectively, our sampling indicates that the presence of inorganic arsenic varies widely among and within different categories of rice grain and products made from rice grain, ranging from <1 to 545 parts per billion (ppb) inorganic arsenic.

    We are announcing the availability of three documents: (1) A draft guidance for industry entitled “Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants: Action Level;” (2) a supporting document referenced in the draft guidance entitled “Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants;” and (3) a risk assessment referenced in the draft guidance entitled “Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report.”

    In the risk assessment report, we provide quantitative estimates of lung and bladder cancer risk presented by long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products. We qualitatively address certain non-cancer health risks of exposure to inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products during pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood, periods of high susceptibility to those risks. We also used the mathematical cancer risk model to evaluate the impact of potential mitigation options to reduce the risk. We conducted this risk assessment in consultation with other Federal Agencies, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the FDA National Center for Toxicological Research, and the Environmental Protection Agency. External expert peer review of the risk assessment was conducted; the risk assessment report and peer review documents are available online (Refs. 5, 6, and 7).

    The draft guidance identifies an action level for inorganic arsenic in rice cereals for infants of 100 micrograms/kilogram (µg/kg) or 100 parts per billion (ppb), and identifies FDA's intended sampling and enforcement approach. The supporting document reviews data on inorganic arsenic levels in rice cereals for infants, health effects, and achievability, and explains FDA's rationale for identifying an action level for inorganic arsenic in rice cereals for infants of 100 µg/kg.

    We conclude that the 100 µg/kg action level will help protect the public health and is achievable with the use of current good manufacturing practice, but we especially welcome comments and information bearing on the achievability and public health benefits and risks of 100 µg/kg, as compared with other potential action levels (including no action level). If the guidance is finalized consistent with the draft, we intend to consider the action level of 100 µg/kg or 100 ppb inorganic arsenic, in addition to other factors, when considering whether to bring enforcement action in a particular case.

    We are issuing the draft guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of the FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternate approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance and the supporting document at either http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the risk assessment report at http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm485278.htm.

    III. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Total Diet Study,” 2016, (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/TotalDietStudy/ucm2006799.htm).

    2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Toxic Elements in Food and Foodware and Radionuclides in Food Program,” 2016, (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ComplianceEnforcement/ucm073204.pdf).

    3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Analytical Results from Inorganic Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Sampling,” 2013, (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Metals/UCM352467.pdf).

    4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Analytical Results from Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants, Non-rice Infant Cereal and Other Foods Commonly Eaten by Infants and Toddlers,” 2016, (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm485278.htm).

    5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Report,” 2016, (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm485278.htm).

    6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “External Peer Review Report. Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Draft Report, Addendum, and Model,” 2015, (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/UCM486544.pdf).

    7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA's Response to External Peer Review on FDA's Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment: Draft Report (July 2015), Addendum to FDA's Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment, and Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products Risk Assessment Cancer Model,” 2016, (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/UCM487230.pdf).

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07840 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an amendment to the notice of a meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee. This meeting was announced in the Federal Register of March 17, 2016. The amendment is being made to reflect a change in the Date and Time portion of the document. The Date of the meeting is changed to May 24, 2016. There are no other changes.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    LaToya Bonner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of March 17, 2016 (81 FR 14448), FDA announced that a meeting of the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee would be held on May 25, 2016. On page 14449, in the first column, the Date and Time portion of the document is changed to read as follows:

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 24, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to the advisory committees.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07906 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Advisory Committee; Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee, Renewal AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until March 23, 2018.

    DATES:

    Authority for the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on March 23, 2018, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kalyani Bhatt, Division of Advisory Committee and Consultant Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which the Food and Drug Administration has regulatory responsibility. The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology and related specialties, and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

    The Committee shall consist of a core of 11 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics, gynecology, urology, pediatrics, epidemiology, or statistics and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.

    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/ReproductiveHealthDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm107572.htm or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to 21 CFR 14.100.

    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Jill Hartzler Warner, Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07908 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions Received AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the Program), as required by Section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 357-6400. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593, or visit our Web site at: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of Title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq., provides that those seeking compensation are to file a petition with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and to serve a copy of the petition on the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is named as the respondent in each proceeding. The Secretary has delegated this responsibility under the Program to HRSA. The Court is directed by statute to appoint special masters who take evidence, conduct hearings as appropriate, and make initial decisions as to eligibility for, and amount of, compensation.

    A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at 42 CFR 100.3. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions that may lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested outside the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.

    Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that “[w]ithin 30 days after the Secretary receives service of any petition filed under section 2111 the Secretary shall publish notice of such petition in the Federal Register.” Set forth below is a list of petitions received by HRSA on February 1, 2016, through February 29, 2016. This list provides the name of petitioner, city and state of vaccination (if unknown then city and state of person or attorney filing claim), and case number. In cases where the Court has redacted the name of a petitioner and/or the case number, the list reflects such redaction.

    Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:

    1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and

    2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:

    a. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or

    b. “[S]ustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.

    In accordance with Section 2112(b)(2), all interested persons may submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading “For Further Information Contact”), with a copy to HRSA addressed to Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N146B, Rockville, MD 20857. The Court's caption (Petitioner's Name v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) and the docket number assigned to the petition should be used as the caption for the written submission. Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program. Dated: March 28, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator. List of Petitions Filed 1. Tessa Skrypek on behalf of D. S., Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0146V 2. Brandie Sanders, Cypress, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0147V 3. Taylor K. Frady on behalf of A. F., Deceased, Piermont, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0148V 4. Robert Kern, Lower Gwynedd, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0150V 5. Katherine R. Hime, South Bend, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0151V 6. Emma Hicks, Madison, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0153V 7. Christina Garber, Honolulu, Hawaii, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0154V 8. Joseph T. Renfroe, Hiram, Georgia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0156V 9. Hannah Mackie, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0157V 10. Laura McClary, Sacramento, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0158V 11. Richard Watkins, Arlington, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0159V 12. Merrill D. Woods, Grandview, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0160V 13. Debra Byrd, Allston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0162V 14. Tracy Conley, Dublin, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0163V 15. Donna Bartholomew, Walnut Creek, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0164V 16. Anna Johnson, Indianapolis, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0165V 17. John D. Buser, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0166V 18. Adam Gonzalez and Melissa Lopez on behalf of L. G., Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0167V 19. Annette Eberhart, Rancho Mirage, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0169V 20. Linda Kimbrough on behalf of G. A., Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0170V 21. Phuong Dinh on behalf of C. N., Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0171V 22. Luis Lao, Orlando, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0172V 23. Tarro Dussault, Redding, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0173V 24. Roger M. Steck, North Tonawanda, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0177V 25. Kathleen Theobald, Vallejo, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0178V 26. Alison Benincasa, Warrington, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0179V 27. Joseph Barcello, Stamford, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0180V 28. Alison Clark, Radnor, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0181V 29. Christie Kirby, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0185V 30. Tyrone Barr, Salem, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0187V 31. Susan Keller, Madison, Connecticut, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0188V 32. Rose McAlister, Austin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0189V 33. Kathryn Stacy, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0190V 34. Saurabh Agarwal and Mukta Agarwal on behalf of R. A., Algonquin, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0191V 35. Robert Whaley, Osceola, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0192V 36. Melissa Franklin, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0193V 37. Jay P. Bhattacharyya, Vienna, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0195V 38. Angelia R. Andrews, Mountain View, Missouri, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0196V 39. Tina Marie Copenhagen, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0198V 40. Lu Ann Kendrick, Chiefland, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0202V 41. Kyara Galindo, Austin, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0203V 42. Daniel Mulvihill, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0207V 43. Talia Service, Arden, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0208V 44. Michael A. Halcrow, Seattle, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0212V 45. Danny Stotler and Nicole Tracy on behalf of R. S., Salida, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0213V 46. Marni Shapin, Baltimore, Maryland, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0214V 47. Richard Warner, Saratoga Springs, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0216V 48. Sandra Retzlaff, Bloomington, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0217V 49. Evonne Risdall, Santa Barbara, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0218V 50. Allene Larson, Dallas, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0219V 51. Consuelo Lory, Maple Shade Township, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0220V 52. Lindsey Desrosiers, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0224V 53. Elizabeth Schandel, Farmingville, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0225V 54. Gary Friedland, Teaneck, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0228V 55. Lana Cooper-Jones, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0229V 56. Melissa Wagner, Baraboo, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0232V 57. Janet Alles, Portage, Indiana, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0233V 58. Meghan Lee Stapleton, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0234V 59. Mary Sue Allen on behalf of Ronald M. Allen, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0239V 60. Johnnie Evans, Jr. on behalf of Johnnie Evans, Sr., Deceased, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0240V 61. Omary Rocha on behalf of Nestor Rocha, Linwood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0241V 62. Jimmon Watson, Alexandria, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0242V 63. Melissa L. Will, Salem, Virginia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0244V 64. Oliva Guzman, Eugene, Oregon, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0246V 65. Scott Kashkin, Chicago, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0247V 66. Carolyn Lanier, Sandusky, Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0250V 67. Elizabeth Neeley, Madison, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0251V 68. Stephanie Rosenthal, La Jolla, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0253V 69. Kelly Carter, Jacksonville, Florida, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0254V 70. Cheryl Bourgerie, Simi Valley, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0255V 71. Maureen Li, Arcadia, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0256V 72. Linda Simmonds, Belfair, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0258V 73. Gregg Riley, Houston, Texas, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0262V 74. Alicia Leann Bohn on behalf of B. G., deceased, Piermont, New York, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0265V 75. Armando Tinoco, Denver, Colorado, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0266V 76. Laurel Cutter, Beverly Hills, California, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0267V 77. Duane Morgan, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0269V 78. James Kerrigan on behalf of A. K., Linwood, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0270V 79. Susan Pless, Concord, North Carolina, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0271V 80. Edward E. Burchett, Jr., Seattle, Washington, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0274V 81. Christine Toddish, Willowbrook, Illinois, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0275V 82. Mark V. Davis, Washington, District of Columbia, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0276V 83. Rosemarie Ward, Sicklerville, New Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0278V 84. Patricia Villano, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0279V 85. Velma Finn, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0280V 86. Teresa Bollinger, Boston, Massachusetts, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0281V 87. Gretchen Kokotovich, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0282V 88. Heather Moreau on behalf of Douglas C. Riemer, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0283V 89. Deborah Bynum on behalf of C. J., Phoenix, Arizona, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0284V 90. Anibal Pinto, Dresher, Pennsylvania, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0285V 91. Emily Claire Fontenot Quibodeaux on behalf of R. H. Q., Birmingham, Alabama, Court of Federal Claims No: 16-0286V
    [FR Doc. 2016-07881 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-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 Federal Assistance Management (RJ). Specifically, this notice: (1) Establishes the Office of Operations and Management (RJA); (2) establishes the Office of Data and Organizational Management (RJB); and (3) updates the functional statement for the Office of Federal Assistance Management (RJ) in its entirety.

    Chapter RJ—Office of Federal Assistance Management Section RJ-00, Mission

    The Office of Federal Assistance Management (OFAM) through strategic direction and collaborative efforts provides leadership in the awarding and oversight of federal funds and related activities that advance the HRSA mission.

    Section RJ-10, Organization

    Delete the organization for the Office of Federal Assistance Management in its entirety and replace with the following:

    The Office of Federal Assistance Management (RJ) is headed by the Associate Administrator, who reports directly to the Administrator, Health Resources and Services Administration. The Office of Federal Assistance Management includes the following components:

    (1) Office of the Associate Administrator (RJ);

    (2) Office of Operations Management (RJA);

    (3) Office of Data and Organizational Management (RJB);

    (4) Division of Financial Integrity (RJ1);

    (5) Division of Grants Policy (RJ2);

    (6) Division of Grants Management Operations (RJ3); and

    (7) Division of Independent Review (RJ4).

    Section RJ-20, Functions

    This notice reflects organizational changes in the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Office of Federal Assistance Management (RJ). Specifically, this notice: (1) Establishes the Office of Operations and Management (RJA); (2) establishes the Office of Data and Organizational Management (RJB); and (3) updates the functional statement for the Office of Federal Assistance Management (RJ) in its entirety.

    Delete the function for the Office of Federal Assistance Management, and replace in its entirety.

    Office of Federal Assistance Management (RJ)

    The Office of Federal Assistance Management (OFAM) provides national leadership in the administration and assurance of the financial integrity of HRSA's programs and provides oversight over HRSA activities to ensure that HRSA's resources are being properly used and protected. Provides leadership, direction, and coordination to all phases of grants policy, administration, and independent review of Competitive grant applications. Specifically: (1) Serves as the Administrator's principal source for grants policy and financial integrity of HRSA programs; (2) exercises oversight over the Agency's business processes related to assistance programs; (3) facilitates, plans, directs, and coordinates the administration of HRSA grant policies and operations; (4) directs and carries out the independent review of grant applications for all of HRSA's programs; (5) exercises the responsibility within HRSA for grant and cooperative agreement receipt, award, and post-award processes; and (6) plans, directs plus manages the electronic systems and business operations that enable staff to perform their day-to-day work.

    Office of Operations Management (RJA)

    Plans, directs and coordinates OFAM-wide administrative management activities. Specifically: (1) Serves as the principal source for administrative operations advice and assistance; (2) provides guidance and coordinates personnel activities for OFAM; (3) provides organization and management analysis, coordinating the allocation of personnel resources, developing policies and procedures for internal operations, interpreting and implementing OFAM management policies and procedures and systems; (4) develops and coordinates OFAM administrative delegations of authority activities (5) lead, plan, and coordinate all OFAM budgetary activities, such as contracts, procurements and inter-agency agreements, as well as, provides guidance and support to OFAM leadership in these areas; (6) provides OFAM-wide support services such as travel coordination, supply management, equipment utilization, printing, property management, space management, records management, and management reports; (7) coordinates OFAM administrative management activities with other components within HRSA and HHS, and with other Federal agencies, as appropriate; and (8) provides overall support for OFAM's continuity of operations and emergency support.

    Office of Data and Organizational Management (RJB)

    The Office of Data and Organizational Management provides strategic management and direction for OFAM-wide efforts addressing organizational and staff development, communication and outreach, business operations and data analysis and evaluation. Specifically: (1) Develops and manages multi-year strategic plans; (2) develops and manages OFAM performance measures; (3) provides management guidance on organizational process improvement within OFAM and its divisions as needed; (4) provides guidance on organizational capacity needs for human resources; (5) provides guidance to OFAM managers to plan strategic direction for OFAM staff development, including guidance to OFAM managers for leadership development and staff engagement; (6) develops, implements and manages OFAM's communication plan; (7) provides strategic direction on the use of communication tools, formats, resources to reach internal and external audiences; (8) manages and maintains current data on all electronic sites; (9) provides targeted outreach to non-federal award recipients; and (10) manages and provides guidance on Executive Secretariat processes, Standard Operating Procedures, and routine internal communications.

    Division of Financial Integrity (RJ1)

    The Division of Financial Integrity: (1) Coordinates Agency-wide efforts addressing HHS's Program Integrity Initiative/Enterprise Risk Management; (2) serves as the Agency's focal point for resolving audit findings on HRSA programs resulting from the Single Audits and special reviews; (3) conducts financial and compliance reviews of non-federal entities use of HRSA funds; (4) conducts the pre-award financial assessment of HRSA non-federal entities; (5) conducts the pre-award and post-award review of grant applicant's and non-federal entities financial soundness and management including accounting systems for managing federal grants; (6) conducts ad hoc studies and reviews related to the financial integrity of the HRSA business processes related to assistance programs; (7) serves as the Agency's liaison with the Office of Inspector General for issues related to HRSA programs; (8) coordinates non-federal entities appeal actions for the Department on HRSA decisions related to HRSA programs; (9) coordinates the preparation of informational reports on high risk non-federal entities; (10) coordinates contractor audit/financial assessment assignments; (11) responds to data requests; (12) serves as the HRSA liaison with the Department on the Single Audit Compliance Supplement update; (13) conducts internal audits; and (14) serves as the outreach to HRSA staff and non-federal entities to increase monitoring efforts for non-federal entities.

    Division of Grants Policy (RJ2)

    The Division of Grants Policy (DGP) analyzes, develops and implements HRSA's federal assistance award policy in compliance with statutes, regulations, Government-wide administrative requirements and Departmental policy. The DGP recommends internal procedures to ensure consistent and effective stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

    Division of Grants Management Operations (RJ3)

    The Division of Grants Management Operations exercises responsibility within HRSA for all business aspects of grant and cooperative agreement award and post-award processes, and participates in the planning, development, and implementation of policies and procedures for grants and other federal financial assistance mechanisms. Specifically: (1) Plans, directs and carries out the grants officer functions for all of HRSA's grant programs as well as awarding official functions for various scholarship, loan, and loan repayment assistance programs; (2) participates in the planning, development, and implementation of policies and procedures for grants and cooperative agreements; (3) provides assistance and technical consultation to program offices and grantees in the application of laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines relative to the Agency's grant and cooperative agreement programs; (4) develops standard operating procedures, methods, and materials for the administration of the Agency's grants programs; (5) establishes standards and guides for grants management operations; (6) reviews grantee financial status reports and prepares reports and analyses on the grantee's use of funds; (7) provides technical assistance to applicants and grantees on financial and administrative aspects of grant projects; (8) provides data and analyses as necessary for budget planning, hearings, operational planning, and management decisions; (9) participates in the development of program guidance and instructions for grant competitions; (10) oversees contracts in support of receipt of applications, records management, and grant closeout operations; and (11) supports post-award monitoring and closeout by analyzing payment management system data and working with grants and program office staff.

    Division of Independent Review (RJ4)

    The Division of Independent Review is responsible for the management and oversight of HRSA's independent review of grant and cooperative agreement applications for funding. Specifically: (1) Plans, directs, and carries out HRSA's independent review of applications for grants and cooperative agreement funding, and assures that the process is fair, open, and competitive; (2) develops, implements, and maintains policies and procedures necessary to carry out the Agency's independent review/peer review processes; (3) provides technical assistance to independent reviewers ensuring that reviewers are aware of and comply with appropriate administrative policies and regulations; (4) provides technical advice and guidance to the Agency regarding the independent review processes; (5) coordinates and assures the development of program policies and rules relating to HRSA's extramural grant activities; and (6) provides HRSA's Offices and Bureaus with the final disposition of all reviewed applications.

    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 28, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07882 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Council on Migrant Health; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health.

    Dates and Times: May 17, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., May 18, 2016, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center (7400 Wisconsin Ave.), Bethesda, Maryland 20814, Telephone: 301 657-1234, Fax: 301 657-6453.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to discuss services and issues related to the health of migratory and seasonal agricultural workers and their families and to formulate recommendations for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general business activities. The Council will also hear presentations from federal officials and experts on agricultural worker issues, including the status of agricultural worker health at the local and national levels. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the contact person listed below at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    For Further Information Contact:

    Esther Paul, MBBS, MA, MPH., Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 16N38B, Maryland 20857; Phone number: (301) 594-4496.

    Jackie Painter, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07909 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service is hereby giving notice that the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA or the Council) will be holding a meeting to continue discussions and possibly develop recommendations regarding People Living with HIV/AIDS. During this meeting, PACHA members will have discussions regarding Health System Transformations, community approaches to implementing the Updated National HIV/AIDS Strategy, and a panel making the case for food as medicine. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on May 24, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. (ET) and May 25, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 12:00 p.m. (ET).

    ADDRESSES:

    200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201 in the Penthouse (eighth floor), Room 800.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Caroline Talev, Public Health Analyst, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 443H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, DC 20201; (202) 205-1178 or [email protected] More detailed information about PACHA can be obtained by accessing the Council's page on the AIDS.gov site at www.aids.gov/pacha.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PACHA was established by Executive Order 12963, dated June 14, 1995, as amended by Executive Order 13009, dated June 14, 1996. In a memorandum, dated July 13, 2010, and under Executive Order 13703, dated July 30, 2015, the President gave certain authorities to the PACHA for implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States (Strategy). PACHA is currently operating under the authority given in Executive Order 13708, dated September 30, 2015.

    PACHA provides advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs, policies, and research to promote effective treatment, prevention, and cure of HIV disease and AIDS, including considering common co-morbidities of those infected with HIV as needed, to promote effective HIV prevention and treatment and quality services to persons living with HIV disease and AIDS.

    Substantial progress has been made in addressing the domestic HIV epidemic since the Strategy was released in July 2010. Under Executive order 13703, the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020 (Updated Strategy) was released. PACHA shall contribute to the federal effort to improve HIV prevention and care.

    The functions of the Council are solely advisory in nature.

    The Council consists of not more than 25 members. Council members are selected from prominent community leaders with particular expertise in, or knowledge of, matters concerning HIV and AIDS, public health, global health, philanthropy, marketing or business, as well as other national leaders held in high esteem from other sectors of society. Council members are appointed by the Secretary or designee, in consultation with the White House Office on National AIDS Policy. The agenda for the upcoming meeting will be posted on the AIDS.gov Web site at www.aids.gov/pacha.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Caroline Talev at [email protected] Due to space constraints, pre-registration for public attendance is advisable and can be accomplished by contacting Caroline Talev at [email protected] by close of business on May 17, 2016. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Any individual who wishes to participate in the public comment session must register with Caroline Talev at [email protected] by close of business on May 17, 2016; registration for public comment will not be accepted by telephone. Individuals are encouraged to provide a written statement of any public comment(s) for accurate minute taking purposes. Public comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to PACHA members at the meeting are asked to submit, at a minimum, 1 copy of the material(s) to Caroline Talev, no later than close of business on May 17, 2016.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. B. Kaye Hayes, Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07880 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Brain Tumors AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a worldwide exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in: HHS Ref. No. E-135-2015/0, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/155,085, filed April 30, 2015, entitled “Boron Mimics Of Amino Acids And Uses Thereof,” to Beijing Lanyears Communication Technology, Ltd., a company formed under the laws of the People's Republic of China and having its principle place of business in Beijing, China.

    The contemplated exclusive license may be limited to boron neutron capture therapy for brain tumors.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license that are received by NIH at the address indicated below on or before April 21, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for a copy of any unpublished patent application, inquiries, objections to this notice, comments and other requests relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP, Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, 31 Center Drive Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479, phone number 301-435-5019, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The invention pertains to boramino acid compounds that can be used as imaging agents for positron emission tomography of cancer or for boron neutron capture therapy. Mimetics created by substituting the carboxylate group (-COO-) of an amino acid with trifluoroborate (-BF3-) are metabolically stable and allow for the use of fluorine-18 (18F) as the radiolabel (e.g., trifluoroborate phenylalanine (B-Phe)). Using boramino acid for 18F-labeling allows for integrating the 18F radiolabel into the core molecular backbone rather than the side-chains thus increasing the agent's target specificity. There is a direct relationship between amino acid uptake and cancer cell replication, where the uptake is extensively upregulated in most cancer cells. This uptake increases as cancer progresses, leading to greater uptake in high-grade tumors and metastases. Amino acids act as signaling molecules for proliferation and may also reprogram metabolic networks in the buildup of biomass. This invention provides for an unmet need for traceable amino acid mimics, including those based on naturally-occurring amino acids, which may be non-invasively detected by imaging technology, including for clinical diagnosis or BNCT. Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is based on the nuclear capture and fission reactions that occur when non-radioactive boron-10 (10B, approximately 20% of natural elemental boron), is irradiated and thus activated with neutrons of the appropriate energy to yield excited boron-11 (11B*). This isotope turn decays into high energy alpha particles (“stripped” down 4He nuclei) and high energy lithium-7 (7Li) nuclei. Both the emitted alpha particles and the lithium ions are close proximity reactions, i.e., at a range of approximately 5-9 µm; the diameter of a target cell. The energies produced in this ionization and radio-decay is cytotoxic and thus exploited as the basis for cancer radiotherapy. The success of BNCT is dependent on the selective delivery of sufficient amounts of 10B to the tumor site with only small amounts localized in the surrounding normal tissues thus sparing normal tissue from the nuclear capture and fission reactions.

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Michael Shmilovich, Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07865 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Prospective Grant of an Exclusive Patent License for Commercialization: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy for Skin Cancer AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of a worldwide exclusive license to practice the inventions embodied in: HHS Ref. No. E-135-2015/0, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/155,085, filed April 30, 2015, entitled “Boron Mimics Of Amino Acids And Uses Thereof,” to Beijing Lanyears Communication Technology, Ltd., a company formed under the laws of the People's Republic of China and having its principle place of business in Beijing, China.

    The contemplated exclusive license may be limited to boron neutron capture therapy for skin cancer.

    DATES:

    Only written comments and/or applications for a license that are received by NIH at the address indicated below on or before April 21, 2016 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests for a copy of any unpublished patent application, inquiries, objections to this notice, comments and other requests relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Michael Shmilovich, Esq., CLP, Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, 31 Center Drive, Room 4A29, MSC2479, Bethesda, MD 20892-2479, phone number 301-435-5019, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The invention pertains to boramino acid compounds that can be used as imaging agents for positron emission tomography of cancer or for boron neutron capture therapy. Mimetics created by substituting the carboxylate group (-COO-) of an amino acid with trifluoroborate (-BF3-) are metabolically stable and allow for the use of fluorine-18 (18F) as the radiolabel (e.g., trifluoroborate phenylalanine (B-Phe)). Using boramino acid for 18F-labeling allows for integrating the 18F radiolabel into the core molecular backbone rather than the side-chains thus increasing the agent's target specificity. There is a direct relationship between amino acid uptake and cancer cell replication, where the uptake is extensively upregulated in most cancer cells. This uptake increases as cancer progresses, leading to greater uptake in high-grade tumors and metastases. Amino acids act as signaling molecules for proliferation and may also reprogram metabolic networks in the buildup of biomass. This invention provides for an unmet need for traceable amino acid mimics, including those based on naturally-occurring amino acids, which may be non-invasively detected by imaging technology, including for clinical diagnosis or BNCT. Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is based on the nuclear capture and fission reactions that occur when non-radioactive boron-10 (10B, approximately 20% of natural elemental boron), is irradiated and thus activated with neutrons of the appropriate energy to yield excited boron-11 (11B*). This isotope turn decays into high energy alpha particles (“stripped” down 4He nuclei) and high energy lithium-7 (7Li) nuclei. Both the emitted alpha particles and the lithium ions are close proximity reactions, i.e., at a range of approximately 5-9 µm; the diameter of a target cell. The energies produced in this ionization and radio-decay is cytotoxic and thus exploited as the basis for cancer radiotherapy. The success of BNCT is dependent on the selective delivery of sufficient amounts of 10B to the tumor site with only small amounts localized in the surrounding normal tissues thus sparing normal tissue from the nuclear capture and fission reactions.

    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Michael Shmilovich, Senior Licensing and Patent Manager, Office of Technology Transfer and Development, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07864 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2016-0027] Privacy Act of 1974; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records” (73 FR 77807, December 19, 2008). This system of records allows DHS/CBP to collect and maintain records on individuals subject to regulatory audits of customs brokers, importers, and other parties involved in international trade activities. CBP is updating this system of records notice to reflect changes to its authorities, category of records, and routine uses. Specifically, these changes include expanding the category of records to permit the collection of Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) or Social Security numbers (SSNs), also known as a Federal Taxpayer Identifying Number, and business records associated with the audit from customs brokers, importers, and other parties via merchandise entry documentation. CBP is clarifying the authorities section to include updated and more narrowly tailored authorities to permit the collection of EIN or SSN. CBP is making non-substantive edits to the Routine Uses A-G to align with previously published Departmental Systems of Records Notices (SORNs). Lastly, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice.

    Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reduce the current exemptions for this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the Federal Register. The previously issued Final Rule for DHS/CBP-014 RAAS (Aug. 31, 2009, 74 FR 45076) remains in effect until a new Final Rule is issued. This updated system will be included in the DHS inventory of record systems.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 6, 2016. This updated system will be effective May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0027 by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, please visit http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: John Connors, (202) 344-1610, Privacy Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Privacy and Diversity Office, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20229. For privacy questions, please contact: Karen L. Neuman, (202) 343-1717, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proposes to update and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records.”

    DHS/CBP conducts regulatory audits in support of its oversight of customs brokers licensed by DHS/CBP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641 to act as agents for importers in the entry of merchandise and payment of duties and fees. This system of records covers records about importers and other parties engaged in international trade activities that are the subject of a regulatory audit or are identified in and related to the scope of an audit report.

    As a result of a biennial review of this SORN, DHS/CBP is updating the categories of records to include the collection of EINs or SSNs, also known as Federal Taxpayer Identifying Number, pursuant to 19 CFR 24.5, 19 CFR 149.3, and E.O. 9397, as amended by E.O. 13478. DHS/CBP collects this additional data to align RAAS with information provided by importers through the DHS/CBP Automated Commercial Environment System (ACE) data-source. DHS/CBP is also clarifying the category of records to include business and audit records collected or created as part of the audit process.

    DHS/CBP is clarifying the authorities section to include updated and more narrowly tailored authorities to permit the collection of EIN or SSN. 19 CFR 24.5 and 19 CFR 149.3 require that DHS/CBP collect Federal Taxpayer Identifying Numbers in association with services resulting in issuance of a bill or refund check upon adjustment of a cash collection or to document entities that are liable for payment of all duties and responsible for meeting all statutory or regulatory requirements incurred as a result of importation. Individuals or entities that do not have a SSN may submit an EIN in lieu of the SSN for merchandise entry purposes.

    DHS/CBP is making non-substantive edits to the Routine Uses A-G to align with previously published Departmental SORNs. This notice also includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and texts of the previously published notice.

    Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in DHS/CBP-014 RAAS may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/CBP may share information with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.

    Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reduce the current exemptions for this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the Federal Register. The previously issued Final Rule for DHS/CBP-014 RAAS (Aug. 31, 2009; 74 FR 45076) remains in effect until a new Final Rule is issued. This updated system will be included in the DHS inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

    Below is the description of the DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS) System of Records.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

    SYSTEM OF RECORDS:

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-014.

    SYSTEM NAME:

    DHS/CBP-014 Regulatory Audit Archive System (RAAS).

    Security classification:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Records are maintained in the Regulatory Audit Management Information System (RAMIS) located at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Categories of individuals covered by this system include importers and other parties engaged in international trade activities that are the subject of a regulatory audit or are identified in and related to the scope of an audit report.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    Categories of individuals covered by this system include:

    • Individual's name, including names of officers of customs broker firms or other business entities engaged in international trade and identified as a subject of an audit or related to the scope of an audit;

    • Importer of Record (IR) Number;

    • Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. DUN numbers;

    • Business records associated with the audit;

    • Email address;

    • Phone number;

    • Employer Identification Number (EIN) or Social Security number (SSN), also known as Federal Taxpayer Identifying Number;

    • Audit reports of subject accounts and records;

    • Correspondence with the subject of the audits and related parties:

    • Congressional inquiries concerning customs brokers or other audit subjects and disposition made of such inquiries; and

    • License and permit numbers and dates issued and district or port covered.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    6 U.S.C. 115(a)(1) and 213(b)(2); 19 U.S.C. ch. 4; 19 U.S.C. 1508, 1509, 1592, and 1641; 19 CFR parts 24.5, 111, 143, 149.3, 163; 31 U.S.C. 3729; and E.O. 9397, as amended by E.O. 13478.

    PURPOSE(s):

    The purpose of this system is to collect and maintain records on the regulatory audits of customs brokers, licensed by CBP pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641, to act as agents for importers in the entry of merchandise and payment of duties and fees, and other persons or business entities engaged in international trade.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:

    1. DHS or any Component thereof;

    2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;

    3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or

    4. The United States or any agency thereof.

    B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

    C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.

    E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

    2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.

    G. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.

    H. To an appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or international agency, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit, or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant or other benefit and disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the person making the request.

    I. To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal in the course of presenting evidence, including disclosures to opposing counsel or witnesses in the course of civil discovery, litigation, or settlement negotiations or in connection with criminal law proceedings or in response to a subpoena from a court of competent jurisdiction.

    J. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    DHS/CBP stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    DHS/CBP may retrieve records by name or other (alphanumeric) personal identifier.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    DHS/CBP safeguards records in this system according in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. DHS/CBP has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    DHS/CBP maintains regulatory audit records in accordance with N1-36-86-1 approved by NARA on November 9, 1989. CBP maintains regulatory reports and company findings on-site for one year and then transfers the records to the Federal Records Center (FRC), which destroys the records after ten (10) years. CBP maintains regulatory audit subject records on-site for one year and transfers the files to the FRC, which destroys the records after three years.

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Executive Director, Regulatory Audit, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1717 H Street—6th Floor, Washington, DC 20229.

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the DHS Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer or CBP's FOIA Officer, whose contact information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/foia under “Contacts.” If an individual believes more than one Component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her, the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive SW., Building 410, STOP-0655, Washington, DC 20528.

    When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Office at http://www.dhs.gov/foia or 1-866-431-0486. In addition, you should:

    • Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;

    • Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;

    • Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and

    • Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS Component agency may have responsive records.

    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his or her records.

    Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The information contained in this system of records originates in connection with customs broker audits and audits of other persons engaged in international commerce conducted by the regulatory audit staffs. The audits may be supplemented with information furnished by the Office of the Chief Counsel or its field offices, Office of International Trade—Regulations and Rulings, and the Office of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These audits include examination of records pertaining to brokers and importers (including their clients), and other persons engaged in international trade activities.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    DHS/CBP is not requesting an exemption with respect to information maintained in the system as it relates to data submitted by or on behalf of a subject of an audit. Information in the system may be shared pursuant to the exceptions under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)) and the above routine uses. The Privacy Act requires DHS to maintain an accounting of the disclosures made pursuant to all routines uses. Disclosing the fact that a law enforcement or intelligence agency has sought particular records may affect ongoing law enforcement activity. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), DHS will claim exemption from sec. (c)(3) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, as is necessary and appropriate to protect this information.

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07893 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary [Docket No. DHS-2016-0024] Privacy Act of 1974: Department of Homeland Security/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Privacy Act System of Records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current Department-wide system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records,” 76 FR 39408, July 6, 2011. This system of records allows DHS to maintain a synchronized copy of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which includes categories of individuals covered by DOJ/FBI-019, “Terrorist Screening Records Center System,” 72 FR 77846 (Dec. 14, 2011). DHS maintains a synchronized copy to automate and simplify the transmission of information in the Terrorist Screening Database to DHS and its Components. With this updated notice, DHS is reducing the number of claimed exemptions, pursuant to a concurrently published Final Rule elsewhere in the Federal Register. A detailed description of the recent changes to the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records is published elsewhere in the Federal Register at 81 FR 3811 (Jan. 22, 2016).

    DHS is issuing a new Final Rule concurrently with this notice. The existing Final Rule for Privacy Act exemptions will continue to apply until the new Final Rule is published. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 6, 2016. This updated system will be effective May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2016-0024 by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, please visit http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions and privacy issues please contact: Karen L. Neuman (202-343-1717), Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to update and reissue a current Department-wide system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records,” 76 FR 39408, July 6, 2011. This system of records allows DHS to maintain a synchronized copy of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), which includes categories of individuals covered by DOJ/FBI-019, “Terrorist Screening Records Center System,” 72 FR 77846 (Dec. 14, 2011). DHS maintains a synchronized copy to automate and simplify the transmission of information in the Terrorist Screening Database to DHS and its Components. With this updated notice, DHS is reducing the number of claimed exemptions, pursuant to a concurrently published Final Rule elsewhere in the Federal Register. A detailed description of the recent changes to the categories of individuals in the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records is published elsewhere in the Federal Register at 81 FR 3811 (Jan. 22, 2016).

    DHS is issuing a new Final Rule concurrently with this notice. The existing Final Rule for Privacy Act exemptions, 75 FR 55335 (Dec. 29, 2011) will continue to apply until the new Final Rule is published. This updated system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. As a matter of policy, DHS extends administrative Privacy Act protections to all individuals when systems of records maintain information on U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and visitors.

    Below is the description of the DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

    (DHS)/ALL-030 System of Records:

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/ALL-030

    System name:

    DHS/ALL-030 Use of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) System of Records

    Security classification:

    Unclassified.

    System location:

    Records are maintained at DHS and Component Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Categories of individuals covered by this system include:

    (a) Individuals known or suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism (“known or suspected terrorists”);

    (b) Individuals who are foreign nationals or lawful permanent resident aliens and who are excludable from the United States based on their familial relationship, association, or connection with a known or suspected terrorist as described in sec. 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA exceptions”);

    (c) Individuals who were officially detained during military operations, but not as Enemy Prisoners of War, and who have been identified to pose an actual or possible threat to national security (“military detainees”); and

    (d) Individuals known or suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in aid of, or related to transnational organized crime, thereby posing a possible threat to national security (“transnational organized crime actors”).

    Categories of records in the system:

    Categories of records in this system include:

    1. Identifying biographic information, such as name, date of birth, place of birth, passport or driver's license information, and other available identifying particulars used to compare the identity of an individual being screened with a subject in the TSDB;

    2. Biometric information, such as photographs, fingerprints, or iris images, and associated biographic and contextual information;

    3. References to or information from other government law enforcement and intelligence databases, or other relevant databases that may contain terrorism or national security information, such as unique identification numbers used in other systems;

    4. Information collected and compiled to maintain an audit trail of the activity of authorized users of WLS information systems; and

    5. System-generated information, including metadata, archived records and record histories from WLS.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; The Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. L. 71-361, 46 Stat. 741, as amended; The Immigration and Nationality Act; 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103a, 40113, ch. 49 and 46105; Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-6, “Integration and Use of Screening Information to Protect Against Terrorism” (Sept. 16, 2003); Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-11, “Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures” (Aug. 27, 2004); National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-59/Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-24, “Biometrics for Identification and Screening to Enhance National Security” (June 5, 2008); E.O. 13388, “Further Strengthening the Sharing of Terrorism Information to Protect Americans,” 70 FR 62023 (Oct. 25, 2005); Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-458, 118 Stat 3638; National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. 235, 61 Stat. 495, as amended; and 28 U.S.C. 533.

    Purpose(s):

    DHS and its Components collect, use, maintain, and disseminate information in the DHS Watchlist Service (WLS) to facilitate DHS mission-related functions, such as counterterrorism, law enforcement, border security, and inspection activities. The TSDB data, which includes personally identifiable information (PII), is necessary for DHS to effectively and efficiently assess the risk or threat posed by a person for the conduct of its mission.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) provides a near real time, synchronized version of the TSDB to DHS in order to improve the timeliness and governance of watchlist data exchanged between the FBI's TSC and DHS and its Component systems that currently use TSDB data.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI/TSC in order to receive confirmations that the information has been appropriately transferred and any other information related to the reconciliation process so that DHS is able to maintain a synchronized copy of the TSDB.

    DHS will share information contained in this system to Components internal to DHS pursuant to subsec. 552a(b)(1) of the Privacy Act, and subsequently may be shared externally outside DHS at the programmatic level pursuant to routine uses described in the following published system of records notices:

    (1) DHS/TSA-002 Transportation Security Threat Assessment System (T-STAS), 79 FR 46862, Aug. 11, 2014;

    (2) DHS/TSA-019 Secure Flight Records, 80 FR 223, Jan. 5, 2015;

    (3) DHS/CBP-011 TECS, 73 FR 77778, Dec. 19, 2008;

    (4) DHS/CBP-006, Customs and Border Protection Automated Targeting System, 77 FR 30297, May 22, 2012;

    (5) DHS/US-VISIT-004, DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT), 72 FR 31080, June 5, 2007;

    (6) DHS/IA-001, Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) Enterprise Records System, 73 FR 28128, May 15, 2008;

    (7) DHS/ICE-009, ICE External Investigations, 75 FR 404, Jan. 5, 2010; and

    (8) DHS/USCIS-006 Fraud Detection and National Security Records, 77 FR 47411, Aug. 8, 2012.

    Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies:

    None.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    DHS stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records are stored on servers, magnetic disc, tape, digital media, and CD-ROM.

    Retrievability:

    DHS may retrieve records by name or other personal identifier.

    Safeguards:

    DHS safeguards records in this system in accordance with applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. Strict controls have been imposed to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.

    Retention and disposal:

    The WLS maintains a near real-time feed of the TSDB, and does not retain historical copies of the TSDB. The WLS is synchronized with the TSDB. When the FBI/TSC adds, modifies, or deletes data from TSDB, WLS duplicates these functions almost simultaneously, and that information is then passed to DHS and its authorized Component systems. DHS does not manipulate the data within TSDB feed received by WLS. The authorized DHS Component that is screening individuals will maintain, separate from WLS, a record of a match or possible match with TSDB and DHS will retain this information in accordance with the DHS Component specific SORNs identified in this notice.

    System Manager and address:

    Executive Director, Passenger Systems Program Directorate, Office of Information and Technology, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 7400 Fullerton Rd, Springfield, VA 22153.

    Notification procedure:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS and its Components will consider individual requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Headquarters or component Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/foia under “contacts.” If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Drive SW., Building 410, STOP-0655, Washington, DC 20528.

    When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief FOIA Officer at http://www.dhs.gov/foia or 1-866-431-0486. In addition, you should:

    • Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;

    • Identify which Component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;

    • Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and

    • Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records.

    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his or her records.

    Without the above information, the Component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    In addition, if individuals are uncertain what agency handles the information, they may seek redress through the DHS Traveler Inquiry Redress Program (DHS TRIP), 72 FR 2294, Jan. 18, 2007. Individuals who believe they have been improperly denied entry, refused boarding for transportation, or identified for additional screening by DHS may submit a redress request through DHS TRIP. The DHS TRIP is a single point of contact for individuals who have inquiries or seek resolution regarding difficulties they experienced during their travel screening at transportation hubs such as airports and train stations or crossing U.S. borders. Redress requests should be sent to: DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, 601 South 12th Street, TSA-901, Arlington, VA 20598 or online at http://www.dhs.gov/trip and at http://www.dhs.gov.

    Record access procedures:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    Contesting record procedures:

    See “Notification procedure” above.

    Record source categories:

    Records are received from the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, specifically records covered by DOJ/FBI-019, “Terrorist Screening Records Center System,” 72 FR 77846 (Dec. 14, 2011).

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(5), (e)(8); and (g) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2).

    Dated: March 22, 2016. Karen L. Neuman, Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07895 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FW-HQ-LE-2016-N069; FF09L00200-FX-LE18110900000] Proposed Information Collection; Captive Wildlife Safety Act AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2016. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by June 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0129” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Hope Grey at [email protected] (email) or 703-358-2482 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract. The Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA) amends the Lacey Act by making it illegal to import, export, buy, sell, transport, receive, or acquire, in interstate or foreign commerce, live lions, tigers, leopards, snow leopards, clouded leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, or cougars, or any hybrid combination of any of these species, unless certain exceptions are met. There are several exemptions to the prohibitions of the CWSA, including accredited wildlife sanctuaries.

    There is no requirement for wildlife sanctuaries to submit applications to qualify for the accredited wildlife sanctuary exemption. Wildlife sanctuaries themselves will determine if they qualify. To qualify, they must meet all of the following criteria:

    • Approval by the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as a corporation that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which is described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of that code.

    • No engagement in commercial trade in the prohibited wildlife species, including offspring, parts, and products.

    • No propagation of the prohibited wildlife species.

    • No direct contact between the public and the prohibited wildlife species.

    The basis for this information collection is the recordkeeping requirement that we place on accredited wildlife sanctuaries. We require accredited wildlife sanctuaries to maintain complete and accurate records of any possession, transportation, acquisition, disposition, importation, or exportation of the prohibited wildlife species as defined in the CWSA (50 CFR 14, subpart K). Records must be up to date and include: (1) Names and addresses of persons to or from whom any prohibited wildlife species has been acquired, imported, exported, purchased, sold, or otherwise transferred; and (2) dates of these transactions. Accredited wildlife sanctuaries must:

    • Maintain these records for 5 years.

    • Make these records accessible to Service officials for inspection at reasonable hours.

    • Copy these records for Service officials, if requested.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0129.

    Title: Captive Wildlife Safety Act, 50 CFR 14.250-14.255.

    Service Form Number: None.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Accredited wildlife sanctuaries.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: Ongoing.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 750.

    Completion Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 750.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: April 1, 2016. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07841 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCOS00000 L10100000.BN0000 16X] Notice of Public Meetings, Southwest Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southwest Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is scheduled to meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Southwest RAC meeting will be held on June 10, 2016, in Mancos, Colorado.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Southwest RAC meeting will be held June 10 at the Mancos Community Building, 130 Grand Ave., Mancos, CO 81328. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. A public comment period regarding matters on the agenda will be held at 11:30 a.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannon Borders, Public Affairs Specialist, 970-240-5300; 2505 S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Southwest RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado. Topics of discussion for all Southwest RAC meetings may include field manager and working group reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management and other issues as appropriate. These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of people wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07866 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCO956000 L14400000.BJ0000 16X] Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially file the survey plats listed below and afford a proper period of time to protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the plats will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.

    DATES:

    Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plats described in this notice will happen on May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.

    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey in Township 27 South, Range 55 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on December 9, 2015.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 13 South, Range 69 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on January 7, 2016.

    The field notes of the remonumentation of certain corners in Township 51 North, Range 8 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on January 19, 2016.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 34 North, Range 4 West, South of the Ute Line, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on February 11, 2016.

    The plat, in 2 sheets, and field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 34 North, Range 5 West, South of the Ute Line, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on February 11, 2016.

    The plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey survey and survey in Township 36 North, Range 11 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on March 9, 2016.

    The plat, in 2 sheets, incorporating the field notes of the dependent resurvey and survey of Fractional Township 36 North, Range 12 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, was accepted on March 9, 2016.

    Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07875 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-20461; PPWOCRADI0, PCU00RP14.R50000] National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before February 20, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by April 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before February 20, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Jost-Kuhn House, 1354 Madison St. NW., Washington, 16000127 GEORGIA Elbert County Bowman Commercial Historic District, Public Square on GA 17, Bowman, 16000128 GUAM Guam County Chaqui'an Massacre Site, Chalan Emsley, Yigo, 16000129 IOWA Muscatine County Beers and St. John Company Coach Inn, 1193 Highway 6, West Liberty, 16000130 KANSAS Douglas County First United Methodist Church of Oregon—California Trail Segment, 867 US 40 Hwy., Lawrence, 16000132 Leavenworth County Abernathy Furniture Company Factory (Boundary Increase), 100 N. 2nd St., Leavenworth, 16000131 Sedgwick County Ash—Grove Historic District on East Douglas Avenue, 2100-2330 E. Douglas Ave. (evens); 114 & 117 N. Madison Ave., 111 N. Sedgwick County Spruce St.; 115-117 N. Grove St., Wichita, 16000135 Grandview Terrace Apartments, (Residential Resources of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas 1870-1957 MPS), 1736-1748 N. Hillside, Wichita, 16000134 Wabaunsee County Eskridge Bandstand, Eskridge Cty Park, bet. 4th, 5th, Main & Pine Sts., Eskridge, 16000133 MAINE Androscoggin County Danville Junction Grange #65, 15 Grange St., Auburn (Danville), 16000138 Excelsior Grange #5, 446 Harris Hill Rd., Poland, 16000137 Kennebec County Starling Grange #156 (former), 2769 Main St. (ME 17), Fayette, 16000136 MASSACHUSETTS Hampden County St John's Congregational Church & Parsonage—Parish for Working Girls, 69 Hancock St., Springfield, 16000140 Norfolk County Union Station, West St., Walpole, 16000139 MONTANA Fergus County Stafford's Grocery, 201 Main St., Winifred, 16000141 Gallatin County Elkhorn Ranch Historic District, 33133 Gallatin Rd., Gallatin Gateway, 16000142 NEW HAMPSHIRE Carroll County Green Pastures, Address Restricted, Sandwich, 16000145 Hillsborough County Francestown Town Hall and Academy and Town Common Historic District, 2 New Boston Rd., Francestown, 16000143 Rockingham County Centennial Hall, 105 Post Rd., North Hampton, 16000144 SOUTH CAROLINA Anderson County Ginn, B.J. House, 106 Webb St., Anderson, 16000146 WASHINGTON King County Cambridge Apartments, 903 Union St., Seattle, 16000148 Yakima County First Baptist Church, 515 East Yakima Ave., Yakima, 16000147 WISCONSIN Marathon County Manson, Charles L. and Dorothy, House, 1224 Highland Park Blvd., Wausau, 16000149 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

    Dated: February 25, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07820 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NRNHL-20657; 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 March 12, 2016, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted by April 21, 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 March 12, 2016. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    CALIFORNIA Tulare County Bearpaw High Sierra Camp, Sequoia National Park, Three Rivers, 16000192 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA District of Columbia Kalorama Park and Archeological District, 1875 Columbia Rd. NW., Washington, 16000193 Southern Railway Building, 1500 K St. NW., Washington, 16000194 GEORGIA Fulton County Capitol View Historic District, Roughly bounded by Hartford Pl., Fairbanks St., Perkerson Park, Sylvan Rd., and Division Pl., Atlanta, 16000195 ILLINOIS Du Page County Big Woods School, 3033 N. Eola Rd., Aurora, 16000197 Lawrence County Bridge at Thirteenth Street, 13th St. between Clark and Johnson Sts., St. Francisville, 16000198 IOWA Cerro Gordo County Rock Crest—Rock Glen Historic District (Boundary Increase), 431 First St. SE., 11, 15, 21 Rock Glen, 507, 511, 525, 541 E. State St., 22, 28, 110, 120, 204, South Carolina Ave., Mason City, 16000196 MARYLAND Wicomico County United States Post Office, 129 East Main St., Salisbury, 16000199 MICHIGAN Kalamazoo County Brown, Eric and Margaret Ann (Davis), House, 2806 Taliesin, Kalamazoo, 16000200 NEW YORK Greene County Stanton Hill Cemetery, County Route 50, Hannacroix (Town of New Baltimore), 16000201 St. Lawrence County Ogdensburg Harbor Lighthouse, 2 Jackson St., Ogdensburg, 16000202 PENNSYLVANIA Dauphin County Hotel Lykens, 600 Main St., Lykens, 16000203 Israel Building, 601 Main St., Lykens, 16000204 VIRGINIA Fauquier County Broad Run—Little Georgetown Rural Historic District, Roughly bounded by The Plains, Bull Run Mountains, John Marshall Hwy., Bust Head Rd., and Hopewell Rd., Broad Run, 16000205 WISCONSIN La Crosse County La Crosse Armory, 2219 South Ave., La Crosse, 16000206 WYOMING Sheridan County Robinson—Smith House, 520 South Brooks St., Sheridan, 16000207 Authority:

    60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.

    Dated: March 18, 2016. J. Paul Loether, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07821 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [MMAA 104000] Notice of Availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale for Western Planning Area Lease Sale 248.

    SUMMARY:

    BOEM announces the availability of the Proposed Notice of Sale (NOS) for the proposed Western Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248 (WPA Sale 248). This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 556.29(c) as a matter of information to the public. With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, provides affected States the opportunity to review the Proposed NOS. The Proposed NOS sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rental rates.

    DATES:

    Affected States may comment on the size, timing, and location of proposed WPA Sale 248 within 60 days following their receipt of the Proposed NOS. The Final NOS will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the date of bid opening. Bid opening currently is scheduled for August 24, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Proposed NOS for WPA Sale 248 and Proposed NOS Package containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. Telephone: (504) 736-2519. The Proposed NOS and Proposed NOS Package also are available on BOEM's Web site at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-248/.

    Agency Contact: David Diamond, Chief, Leasing Division, [email protected]

    Dated: March 28, 2016. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07917 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact AGENCY:

    Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to announce a meeting of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (Compact). Thus far, the Federal Government and 30 states are parties to the Compact which governs the exchange of criminal history records for licensing, employment, and similar purposes. The Compact also provides a legal framework for the establishment of a cooperative federal-state system to exchange such records.

    The United States Attorney General appointed 15 persons from state and federal agencies to serve on the Council. The Council will prescribe system rules and procedures for the effective and proper operation of the Interstate Identification Index system for noncriminal justice purposes.

    Matters for discussion are expected to include:

    (1) Noncriminal Justice Rap Back Audit Plan (2) Proposed Changes to the National Fingerprint File Qualifications Requirements (3) 2014 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems

    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first-seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written statement with the Council or wishing to address this session of the Council should notify the Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Compact Officer, Mr. Gary S. Barron at (304) 625-2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start of the session. The notification should contain the individual's name and corporate designation, consumer affiliation, or government designation, along with a short statement describing the topic to be addressed and the time needed for the presentation. Individuals will ordinarily be allowed up to 15 minutes to present a topic.

    DATES:

    Dates and Times: The Council will meet in open session from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., on May 11-12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the Westin Convention Center, 1000 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, telephone 412-560-6353.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Inquiries may be addressed to Mr. Gary S. Barron, FBI Compact Officer, Module D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, telephone (304) 625-2803, facsimile (304) 625-2868.

    Dated: March 29, 2016. Gary S. Barron, FBI Compact Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-07869 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Medical Support Notice—Part B ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “National Medical Support Notice—Part B,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201603-1210-004 or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129, TTY 202-